We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps and Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"The solution is stable."
"It is very easy to use, which is what we look for in these types of solutions."
"We have become more aware of what services our users are using, how often they are using them, and what data is being sent out of the organization and to which services. So, it is really a lot about visibility and helping us make decisions based on that. It drives some of our policy decisions for adding extra security controls."
"The feature that helps us in detecting the sensitive information being shared has been very useful. In addition, the feature that allows MCAS to apply policies with SharePoint, Teams, and OneDrive is being used predominantly."
"I like the web GUI/the management interface. I also like the security of Microsoft. As compared to other manufacturers, it's less complex and easy to understand and work with."
"Everything from Microsoft is integrated. You receive regular reports on them all. You can push your reports, logs, and security alerts, which are all integrated. It is crucial that these solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment."
"Defender's integration with our identity solutions is critical in our current setup."
"On-demand scanning is the most valuable feature. In addition, it's a fairly fluid product. It syncs back to the cloud and provides metrics. It's pretty intelligent."
"If your business requirements are relatively simple, it can get the job done."
"The tool's most valuable feature is reporting. It helps us understand what's going on in our environment."
"The quarantine feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"From stability and availability standpoints, it is pretty good."
"The product is stable."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"They need to improve the attack surface reduction (ASR) rules. In the latest version, you can implement ASR rules, which are quite useful, but you have to enable those because if they're not enabled, they flag false positives. In the Defender portal, it logs a block for WMI processes and PowerShell. Apparently, it's because ASR rules are not configured. So, you generally have to enable them to exclude, for example, WMI queries or PowerShell because they have a habit of blocking your security scanners. It's a bit weird that they have to be enabled to be configured, and it's not the other way around."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps’s technical support services needs improvement."
"They should continue integration with all other Microsoft security-related products. The integration with all the other products is still ongoing."
"The response time could be better. It will be helpful if the alerts are even more proactive and we can see more data. Currently, the data is a little bit weak. It is not complete. I can't just see it and completely know which user or which device it is. It takes some effort and time on my part to investigate and isolate a user. It would be great if it is more user-friendly or easy for people to understand."
"There are challenges with detection and there are challenges with false-positive rates."
"Sometimes the support is actually lacking."
"I would like to see them include more features in the older licenses. There are some features that are not available, such as preventing or analyzing cloud attacks."
"Sometimes, we'll get false positive alarms. For example, when a SharePoint path has no file sharing, but there is an external user, it will trigger an alarm that the file has been shared with an external user... the alerting mechanism should be more precise when giving you an alert about what activity has been done with the file..."
"They are priced significantly higher and less cost-effective than alternative options."
"I think some of the hiccups that we had were with the number of domains that we had and how that had to be implemented in Proofpoint."
"The TLS encryption needs to be improved. It's not state of the art."
"Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker should be cheaper."
More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is ranked 2nd in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 30 reviews while Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is ranked 14th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 4 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is rated 8.4, while Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps writes "Integrates well and helps us in protecting sensitive information, but takes time to scan and apply the policies and cannot detect everything we need". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker writes "A highly stable spam filtering solution that can be managed and used by a large number of users". Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Microsoft Defender for Identity, whereas Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker is most compared with Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Skyhigh Security. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Proofpoint Cloud App Security Broker report.
See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) 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.