We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Email Security [EOL] and GWAVA [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Cisco, TitanHQ and others in Email Security."The technical support is good and quick to resolve issues."
"Since we have started using the solution, there have been fewer compromises."
"The product is not resource-intensive."
"Our customers are satisfied with Defender for 365 because Microsoft products are easy to use and customize to meet the client's needs. Everything is in one place, so we can adjust policies as needed for phishing, DLP, ATP, or any other security features that our clients want to apply."
"I would say that 90% of the spam and phishing attack emails get blocked right off the bat."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365's most valuable feature is its performance."
"The deployment capability is a great feature."
"It gives us visibility into threats and, for endpoints, it helps us to prioritize threats. We used to have a lack of visibility, but now our time to detect and respond has decreased."
"All of the filtering features are very nice."
"Using Forcepoint, we have created policies and rules for any suspicious mail. It is blocked and only released by an admin's approval."
"The email and the web filter aspects of the solution are the most valuable features."
"Forcepoint Email Security is a good solution, and I don't have any issues with it. I found anti-spam and anti-spyware the most valuable features of Forcepoint Email Security."
"The filtering of the solution is very good. You can do URL filtering and, while you need a custom URL to filter under other solutions like Symantec, here the solution covers most categories and the database."
"It is good at data leakage prevention (DLP). You can create the data exfiltration profile while sending the emails, which is one of the key advantages of the solution."
"The feature I find most valuable is the web, email and DLP integration."
"It's easier to deploy than other options."
"It's a perfect business pump filter. We have much less false positives, and also less spam than other organizations."
"In one of the reports I can get the exact place where a vulnerable file resides. But for that, I need to explicitly go into the device and check. If they could include that file part in the report, without my having to go to the device itself, that would help."
"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."
"The UI needs to be more user-friendly."
"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 visibility for the weaknesses in the system and unauthorized access can be improved."
"It would be better if it were more scalable. It depends on the architecture, but we would like to make it more scalable for both data centers."
"One area for improvement is integration. For example, when it comes to external SaaS platforms, we were not able to get a lot of information on integrations with such apps for security and authentication."
"There is room for improvement with the UI."
"Forcepoint is the best for DLP, but it is not better than other solutions in terms of phishing emails or threat protections on the email. It has less visibility over there. They might need to enhance these components because other solutions, such as Cisco Email Security and IronPort, have more advanced features. Forcepoint should focus more on threats and spam. They have a small database for spam. They must increase their solution's capability from this perspective."
"Technical support is lacking. It could be a lot better."
"I would like to see some improvement like cloud application and integration capabilities and the classification part is missing from the DLP."
"It's quite difficult to learn this solution, it's not an entry level product. If you are a skilled user you will think it's a very useful tool, but if you are not a skilled user, you'll think it is very difficult to learn."
"This solution could be improved by providing further functionality to reduce or to block ransom attacks, cross-site scripting and man-in-the-middle attacks."
"We've fixed a couple of issues on the solution so far. It doesn't work perfectly all the time."
"I would like for deployment to be simplified."
"Customer support could be better."
"The solution needs to be more user-friendly. I don't want to have to go to my IT guy and have him explain aspects of the solution to me. There should be a way for them to be able to translate aspects of the product to a typical user in a clear concise way."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Forcepoint Email Security [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Forcepoint Email Security [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Email Security with 14 reviews while GWAVA [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Email Security. Forcepoint Email Security [EOL] is rated 7.8, while GWAVA [EOL] is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Email Security [EOL] writes "Easy to use and setup and expands well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GWAVA [EOL] writes "An excellent anti-spam solution for mail systems". Forcepoint Email Security [EOL] is most compared with Proofpoint Email Protection, whereas GWAVA [EOL] is most compared with .
See our list of best Email Security vendors.
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.