We performed a comparison between AppRiver Email Security and Proofpoint Email Protection based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Email Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Microsoft Defender has a feature to protect each and every attachment. Even if it's an encrypted attachment, it will check for any potential threats."
"The product is not resource-intensive."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365's most valuable features are safe attachments and safe links."
"Does a thorough job of examining email and URLs for malicious content."
"There are several features that I consider valuable."
"The most valuable feature is protection against malicious links, fishing, and impersonation. You can train people to be aware of these threats, but they're not always careful. When they're using their phones between meetings, they click on a link, and it's game over."
"The email protection is excellent, especially in terms of anti-phishing policies."
"Some of the valuable features on the email side are anti-phishing, anti-malware, and Safe Links."
"They are very easy to use."
"It's easy to use and user-friendly. Users can also easily release spam emails."
"Its anti-phishing functionality is the most valuable. Certainly, the biggest problem I have is phishing."
"The solution blocks malicious emails containing viruses and malware and reduces them out of spam."
"Its main defense is to stop malicious emails from coming through. There is a sandbox environment where you can open malicious or suspicious emails to make sure that they're not malicious, instead of taking the risk of having your employees do it. This is definitely something that everybody needs nowadays, especially with the rise in cyber attacks."
"The solution has very strong detection for most of the phishing and malicious emails received from the outside."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"They have customized security rules, mature rules, anti-virus protection, as well as email authentication similar to SPF, DKIM, and DMARC."
"Proofpoint Email Protection's initial installation is straightforward. It took us less than a day to complete the implementation."
"The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten."
"There needs to be an improvement in integrating the product to work across multiple operating systems, and to have better support for non-Microsoft file types."
"They can improve their security in a way where a customer can know if all their attachments are safe or not to open through a report. The solution does its job perfectly, but it never reports to the customer whether those attachments have been stopped before or not."
"We need to be able to whitelist data at the backend."
"Microsoft sometimes has downtime, and we'll get several incidents coming in back to back. We have a huge backlog of notifications, many of which may be false positives. However, there might be serious alerts, so we can't risk dismissing all of them at once."
"The phishing and spam filters could use some improvement."
"There is room for improvement with the UI."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 should improve the troubleshooting tools. It's unclear whether the device is blocked at the firewall level or at the device itself. The granularity needed for troubleshooting is currently lacking. From my perspective, Microsoft should address this issue to benefit many users who likely share the same sentiment."
"The certification training for Defender for 365 needs to be deeper and incorporate Sentinel. I took all the security courses except one, and Sentinel isn't included."
"It needs to make sure that the application is up to date with new attacks. They should also send us the demo or introductions for their new incoming features."
"Email security checks contain a small number of false positives."
"Proofpoint Email Protection could improve the Mail Trace feature and make navigation easier."
"Some use cases haven't been dealt with yet."
"There is room for improvement in detecting and preventing phishing attacks. While the solution performs well in some aspects, it struggles with phishing threats."
"Proofpoint Email Protection could improve by allowing more customization of the reports, such as exceptions and black-and-white lists."
"Integration and filtering out who you want and don't want to have integrated ID could be improved."
"The high cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Integration for reporting needs to be improved, it's too complex."
"You only receive one model in Proofpoint Email Protection and the other ones you have to purchase at a high price. There should be more available with the solution and additional models should be less expensive."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppRiver Email Security is ranked 23rd in Email Security with 2 reviews while Proofpoint Email Protection is ranked 1st in Secure Email Gateway (SEG) with 46 reviews. AppRiver Email Security is rated 9.0, while Proofpoint Email Protection is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AppRiver Email Security writes "Pricing that is competitive, excellent technical support, and email security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Proofpoint Email Protection writes "A reasonably priced product that offers protection to emails, along with spam filters". AppRiver Email Security is most compared with Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Avanan, Mimecast Email Security, IRONSCALES and Abnormal Security, whereas Proofpoint Email Protection is most compared with Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Cisco Secure Email, Fortinet FortiMail and KnowBe4. See our AppRiver Email Security vs. Proofpoint Email Protection report.
We monitor all Email Security 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.
