We performed a comparison between IBM Resilient and Proofpoint Threat Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Incident Response solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup of IBM Resilient is not that complex since my company already has a support license that we use internally. In general, the product's deployment phase is not that complex."
"This is a good solution that we recommend for customers."
"The most valuable features of IBM Resilient are its flexibility and customization options for incident response."
"The solution is simple to use and to integrate with IBM QRadar."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The UBA, User Behavior Analytics, is very good."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"What I like most about IBM Resilient is that it has a complete stack, which means you don't need to use different OEM products because you have all you need under the IBM Resilient umbrella. You don't need to worry much about integrations and components because you're working with tested and proven architecture."
"The best part of Proofpoint Threat Response is the Auto-Pull feature. Being able to pull an email back from a user's mailbox is very useful, yet I have noticed that not a lot of organizations use this kind of feature."
"Support is very responsive."
"It has reduced our manual efforts to remove emails from each user's inbox, and in this case we do not have to ask our IT department or users to do so."
"The tool needs to improve its documentation on license scripts."
"The response time of the support is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"One thing to improve is how it handles data formats, which currently might require scripting for conversion to CSV before uploading."
"This product could be improved with better customization. This product isn't the best on the market like QRadar, but it's actually a good solution. However, some competitors' solutions contain more integration, support, automation, or flexibility."
"There are shortcomings with IBM Resilient's technical support team that can be considered for improvement in the future."
"Integrating IBM Resilient with other applications can be very difficult and technically challenging. Often, they use the excuse that you are using the latest version of an application, such as an endpoint security system, and they don't have an API or support for it at the moment. There is no automation in the SOAR solution."
"What could make IBM Resilient better is if IBM increased the number of built-in integrations with different products from other vendors or third-party products."
"Its price needs improvement."
"Has some quirks."
"The interface within Threat Response could be made simpler."
"If the reporting gets improved then it would be better, but the product is running amazing as it is."
IBM Resilient is ranked 4th in Security Incident Response with 17 reviews while Proofpoint Threat Response is ranked 5th in Security Incident Response with 3 reviews. IBM Resilient is rated 7.6, while Proofpoint Threat Response is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Resilient writes "Simple deployment, scalable, but lacking third-party solution compatibility ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Proofpoint Threat Response writes "Tracks and mitigates email security incidents with Auto-Pull, and has good stability and performance". IBM Resilient is most compared with Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR, Splunk SOAR, ServiceNow Security Operations, IBM Security QRadar and Fortinet FortiSOAR, whereas Proofpoint Threat Response is most compared with Cofense Triage, ServiceNow Security Operations and Splunk Attack Analyzer. See our IBM Resilient vs. Proofpoint Threat Response report.
See our list of best Security Incident Response vendors.
We monitor all Security Incident Response reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.