We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiSandbox and Proofpoint Email Protection based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks, ESET and others in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection)."The technical support is very good."
"The GUI makes administration tasks straightforward."
"The most valuable features for me when it comes to Fortinet FortiSandbox are the integrity of the Sandbox and the power of the analyzing tool of the solution."
"The solution extracts an attached file before reaching the user and notifies the user if there's something malicious in the attachment received along with an email."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature was the EDR, endpoint detection and response."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiSandbox are customization, ICAP protocol, and integration with other vendors. Additionally, the security work very well."
"What I find most valuable, is that it is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Proofpoint Email Protection is the TAP Dashboard. It provides more detailed information that can be used for forensic analysis. This is an advantage that other email security providers, such as Cisco, IronPort, or Microsoft do not offer in their dashboards."
"Proofpoint Email Protection is stable enough and does its job of virus, malware, and email scam detection. Setting it up is not too complicated."
"The setup was easy."
"The spam filter for email is good."
"The stability is very good."
"It's a mature product. It does a good job in detection."
"Proofpoint Email Protection's advantage is that, when it's working properly, it tends to catch more threats as compared to other products."
"The Phish Alarm button allows users to submit questionable emails for review and complete analysis."
"The use cases in Fortinet FortiSandbox are not good. It is difficult to upload a custom VM for Fortinet FortiSandbox. The integration of Fortinet FortiSandbox with other Fortinet or FortiGate firewalls is not good. VMs are already installed in the hardware and are working fine, but we tried to approve the custom VM many times but did not succeed."
"The product is good but it could be speedier. In addition, it's quite complex."
"It should be easier to import custom virtual machines. Some of the VMs that are in FortiSandbox don't have the applications that we have in our environment. We need to import a VM with specific applications that we use in our environment. Have all the licenses because this is a real environment. You need a license for the Windows client you run on it. It's possible to import custom VMs, but it's a pain to do it. I would like a tool that simplifies the process."
"If you were to compare prices between vendors and manufacturers, you would see that the lowest equipment in the Sandbox line is quite expensive for a new customer."
"Something that needs to improve, is the end-point protection."
"In future releases, I would like to see more automation capabilities."
"At least once a week we have a false alarm. This needs to be adjusted so that we get fewer of these occurrences."
"I don't know if it is viable to do an improvement like this. When there are passwords in the password-protected files, it can't scan them or do things like this. I don't know if an algorithm or something else could make it better. Nowadays, many legitimate office documents have passwords."
"The solution could be improved with the addition of PLP and email encryption features."
"It has too many screens. It is kind of a conglomeration of products. In other words, they built product A, product B, and product C, and they are yet to integrate them into a single administrative console. I would certainly like to see a more seamless administrative interface. I would also like to see them include more bang for the buck, by including features like email fraud protection, rather than making their product so piecemeal, where you are buying little pieces. I agree with the idea of having multiple tiers or layers, but maybe as small, medium, and large, as opposed to an a la carte menu."
"Proofpoint Email Protection could improve by reducing the price."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Proofpoint should have better integration with complex environments that need more than one instance of Proofpoint, as there are issues with nested instances."
"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."
"The incident reporting on offer needs to be improved. It's lacking right now. It should be on the platform somewhere."
Fortinet FortiSandbox is ranked 5th in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 34 reviews while Proofpoint Email Protection is ranked 1st in SEG (Secure Email Gateway) with 44 reviews. Fortinet FortiSandbox is rated 8.2, while Proofpoint Email Protection is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiSandbox writes "Light and powerful solution design; useful to have". 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". Fortinet FortiSandbox is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Trellix Network Detection and Response, Check Point SandBlast Network, Microsoft Defender for Office 365 and ESET Endpoint Protection Platform, whereas Proofpoint Email Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Cisco Secure Email and Fortinet FortiMail.
We monitor all ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) 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.