No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Arkose vs Proofpoint Email Protection comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Arkose
Ranking in Email Security
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Bot Management (10th), Anomaly Detection Tools (3rd)
Proofpoint Email Protection
Ranking in Email Security
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
111
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (2nd), Digital Risk Protection (3rd), Office 365 Protection (1st), Secure Email Gateway (SEG) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Email Security category, the mindshare of Arkose is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Proofpoint Email Protection is 5.9%, down from 7.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Email Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Proofpoint Email Protection5.9%
Arkose0.4%
Other93.7%
Email Security
 

Featured Reviews

Rajesh Podishetty - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Fraud controls have protected patient portals and now support trusted digital healthcare access
Arkose can be improved in several ways. Integration complexity requires alignment with healthcare IT systems, which is an area where Arkose is currently lagging. There is a need to balance security versus patient experience, as overly strict controls frustrate legitimate users who want to access the patient portal without excessive restrictions. Evolving threats present another challenge. Every day, fraudsters use generative AI to mimic human behavior, which requires Arkose to continually improve its threat detection. Since Arkose handles different systems that need to be controlled over time, there should be regular audits to determine which features need adjustment. Cost-wise, the platform requires improvement, as there is significant cost involved and considerable manual intervention needed, which should be brought into the AI automation. On an everyday basis, patient login verification sometimes experiences delays when internet issues occur, causing patients to wait long in queue. Insurance claims validation does not always happen easily due to application environment downtime. These operational improvements need to be addressed in Arkose Labs systems.
Siva_Prasad - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Email defenses have reduced phishing incidents and protect sensitive data across our enterprise
As things are evolving and threats develop in unpredictable ways, Proofpoint must adopt AI solutions and agentic solutions more aggressively and provide them to customers as part of service offerings. Inbuilt AI solutions would add more value and make Proofpoint a more premium choice for customers. With the help of AI solutions, agentic AI, and generative AI capabilities, the product would be more efficient than it currently is. Filtering false positives is highly challenging because it is impossible for humans to identify which emails are genuine and which are spam. Proofpoint should focus more on this area with back-end agents or other tools. Proofpoint should decide which emails are genuine and which are spam so it is not a challenge for end users. When receiving an email, end users should not have to determine whether to respond or not. Proofpoint should not release such spam emails and should strictly block such spam and spoof emails based on connection IPs. Currently, false positives occur in the product, and while this occurs in every product, it is an area where Proofpoint can focus on improving and reducing false positives. One email is enough for an end user to be deceived and lose money, so addressing this area is critical.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I also like that they challenge crawling in CAPTCHA for mobile. This is good compared to the traditional way."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"Proofpoint Email Protection is a good product, and its most beneficial feature is the Threat Response Auto-Pull. I also like that it's an integrated email security solution."
"The setup was easy."
"Proofpoint Email Protection has positively impacted my organization by definitely reducing the load on administrators for releasing emails and other spam operations that used to be handled by administrators."
"Before deploying Proofpoint Email Protection, we were frequently attacked by phishing and DDoS, and after deploying it, attacks have been reduced by up to 80 percent and phishing has been completely eliminated, so it is working very efficiently."
"Although it is a bit costly compared to Mimecast, Defender, and Cofense Vision, it is efficient and strong in security, so I do not mind the cost because I will not reduce my security risk."
"Proofpoint Email Protection has increased the efficiency of the organization, as before a single end user might be receiving fifteen, twenty, or thirty spam emails in a week, but with Proofpoint Email Protection, they have decreased by approximately eighty percent, so users are receiving many fewer spam emails and do not have to go through all the spam emails just to verify if they are legitimate or not."
"Using Proofpoint Email Protection has improved my SOC analyst workloads significantly by reducing false positives and the number of incidents in the queue."
 

Cons

"Arkose need to provide something for testing."
"Integration complexity requires alignment with healthcare IT systems, which is an area where Arkose is currently lagging."
"The accessibility of Proofpoint Email Protection, particularly access to product trials, could be improved. It's hard to get a trial for Proofpoint Email Protection, and many customers prefer not just to do the POC or demo but try the product out."
"The largest complaint that we hear from our customers is that there is no local support."
"I have noticed some lagging and issues with the Proofpoint Protection Server, which is not the cloud solution or the Admin Portal solution. It seems to lag quite a lot when we try to work with folders, quarantine folders, or configure anything in there."
"To improve Proofpoint Email Protection, I suggest breaking down the URL into one versus three different GUIs."
"As mentioned on the Proofpoint website, it blocks almost around 99.99%, but as far as the last six months of data which we have analyzed, it is slightly on the lower side, around 97 to 98%."
"We have seen a reduction in phishing incidents with Proofpoint Email Protection, but not fully; it is not 100%, and there are still cracks within the walls of Proofpoint Email Protection that let this type of email in for various reasons."
"I would want better spear phishing protection in the essentials package."
"The price could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"In general, the pricing is competitive."
"The end customer is buying our solution, which can be for monthly or annual usage depending on our payment and business model."
"Annually, it costs us about $92,000. This is pretty much what it costs us. There is no additional cost."
"The price is reasonable."
"Proofpoint Email Protection has comparable pricing."
"I rate the product price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"Proofpoint is fairly expensive."
"The licensing model for Proofpoint Email Protection is simple. It's based on the number of users. Price-wise, Proofpoint Email Protection is a five out of ten because it's a pretty expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Email Security solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise25
Large Enterprise62
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Arkose?
Earlier, fraud management used to cost us around 15 million dollars per annum. After using Arkose Labs for fraud control, it helped us save around 9 million dollars. The cost is now 6 million dolla...
What needs improvement with Arkose?
Arkose can be improved in several ways. Integration complexity requires alignment with healthcare IT systems, which is an area where Arkose is currently lagging. There is a need to balance security...
What is your primary use case for Arkose?
I have been using Arkose for the last four years. Arkose is a fraud prevention and trust management platform that helps different sectors in the healthcare industry, including healthcare providers,...
What needs improvement with Proofpoint Email Protection?
To improve Proofpoint Email Protection, I suggest breaking down the URL into one versus three different GUIs. Regarding Proofpoint Email Protection's AI capabilities, I think its governance and sec...
What is your primary use case for Proofpoint Email Protection?
My main use case for Proofpoint Email Protection includes phishing emails, spam, URL isolation, and training. I utilize the email protect portal to ensure that none of our employees in any of the b...
 

Also Known As

Arkose Email Intelligence, Arkose Bot Manager
Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint Digital Protection
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Blocket, University of Waterloo, Lincoln Memorial University, WellSpan Health, U-Haul, Carestream Health, Westinghouse
Find out what your peers are saying about Arkose vs. Proofpoint Email Protection and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.