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

Microsoft Defender for Identity vs Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection comparison

 

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

Microsoft Defender for Iden...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
8th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (5th), Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) (3rd)
Proofpoint Targeted Attack ...
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
34th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Identity is 3.6%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection is 1.3%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Defender for Identity3.6%
Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection1.3%
Other95.1%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

OA
CyberSecurity Engineer | Information Security Management at Self Employed
Automation and threat intelligence streamline threat response and user management
In Microsoft Defender for Identity, I would appreciate improvements in providing information on conditional access. They have added more control that can be put in place, which was not present years ago. They have also integrated Azure Information Protection where policies can be configured. The Self-Service Password Reset (SSPR) allows users to reset their passwords, which is a valuable tool for remote workers. They have added more features into conditional access that integrate with other components, including SSPR and Identity Information Protection, trusted IPs, and locations. These configurations in trusted IP addresses are integrated into conditional access and control the applications I want to secure. Regarding impossible travel scenarios, I can either block the user or grant access while requesting multi-factor authentication. They should improve the automation for impossible travel detection. When connected to Wi-Fi and then to VPN, the system sometimes interprets the IP address change as impossible travel. If Microsoft could develop a feature that indicates when impossible travel is caused by VPN connections, it would prevent unnecessary password resets and session disruptions, especially for VIP users in organizations.
KC
Information Security Specialist at Methanex Chile SpA
Dynamic runtime engine and good protection, but needs better support and a single console
We have two to three issues per month. We contact Proofpoint's customer support for these issues. I am a major point of contact for support. If I am not able to resolve an issue, we will be reaching out to them. Proofpoint can take a couple of days to get back. I also deal with other applications from Okta and Microsoft, and we get the support within a couple of hours. There is a lot of difference between a couple of hours and a couple of days. So, Proofpoint's support should be improved. Okta and Microsoft are also able to do a Zoom or video call, but Proofpoint provides support only through email communication. Only if you request, it would be a Zoom or video session.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is its hybrid artificial intelligence, which gathers forensic data to track and counteract security threats, much like the CSI series in effect."
"It is easy to set up. Based on the number of devices you would like to set up, you can use scripts, Group Policy, etc. It takes five minutes to set up."
"The most valuable aspect is its connection to Microsoft Sentinel and Defender for Endpoint, and giving exact timelines for incidents and when certain events occured during an incident."
"It gives companies a lot of insights that they didn't have before and has increased the security posture significantly."
"One of our users had the same password for every personal and company account. That was a problem because she started receiving phishing emails that could compromise all of her accounts. Defender told us that the user was not changing their password."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Defender for Identity include real-time information for threat detection, its inclusion of behavioral analytics, and vulnerability management."
"The advanced threat protection is one of the strengths of Microsoft Defender for Identity, as it utilizes user and entity analytics and can detect indicative attacks."
"The solution’s alerting is fairly efficient."
"It has a dynamic runtime engine, which gives it an advantage over Prisma that has a static engine. In Prisma, we have to do additional malware analysis, which is not required in Proofpoint."
"Proofpoint's major module is email protection, and most of the spam emails that have been directed towards our organization have been locked by Proofpoint, so we have escaped from threat hunters."
 

Cons

"The solution should provide more detailed data regarding anomaly detections."
"Feedback on sync issues with the Microsoft portal highlighted its slow nature, with syncs sometimes taking eight hours."
"There is no option to remedy an issue directly from the console. If we see an alert, we can't fix it from the console. Instead, we must depend on other Microsoft products, such as MDE. That is a significant drawback. It simply works as a scanner, which can sometimes put enough load on the sensors. Immediate actions should be possible from the dashboard because. It can prevent issues from spreading further."
"Microsoft should look at what competing vendors like CrowdStrike and Broadcom are doing and incorporate those features into Sentinel and Defender. At the same time, I think the intelligence inside the product is improving fast. They should incorporate more zero-trust and hybrid trust approaches. They need to build up threat intelligence based on threats and methods used in attacks on other companies."
"I would like to be able to do remediation from the platform because it is just a scanner right now. If you onboard a device, it shows you what is happening, but you can't use it to fix things."
"The solution could improve how it handles on-premises Android-related attacks."
"One area that needs improvement is the number of alerts generated, leading to alert fatigue."
"The solution could be better at using group-managed access and they could replace it with broad-based access controls."
"We are using the TRAP console that has a Linux-based UI, which is not user-friendly."
"We are using the TRAP console that has a Linux-based UI, which is not user-friendly. The TAP console looks very advanced. Currently, we are maintaining three different consoles, and it is sometimes hard to switch between them or try to grab the data."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Defender for Identity is a little more expensive than other Microsoft products. Identity and Microsoft Defender for Cloud are both a bit costly."
"The product is costly, and we had multiple discussions with accounting to receive a discounted rate. However, on the open market, the tool is expensive."
"It is very affordable considering that other SIEM solutions are much more expensive and have many more licensing restrictions and fees."
"You won't be able to change your tenants from where you deploy them. For example, if you select Canada, they will charge you based on Canadian pricing. If you are also in London, when you deploy in Canada, the pound is higher than Canadian dollars, but your platform resources are billable in Canadian dollars. Using your pounds to pay for any of these things will be cheaper. Or, if you deploy in London, they will charge you based on your local currency."
"Microsoft Defender for Identity comes as part of the Microsoft E5 licensing stack."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise14
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender for Identity?
I really would have to sit down to think about how Microsoft Defender for Identity can be improved. I didn't take stock in what needs to be improved because I appreciated having the tools right the...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Defender for Identity?
My main use cases for Microsoft Defender for Identity include Conditional Access, checking risky users, remediating risky users, and user sign-ins. I can easily remediate or determine what the user...
What advice do you have for others considering Microsoft Defender for Identity?
I don't really use Microsoft Defender for Identity a lot because my new role doesn't allow me to take time to do so. I don't really use the threat intelligence feature of Microsoft Defender for Ide...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Azure Advanced Threat Protection, Azure ATP, MS Defender for Identity
Targeted Attack Protection
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft Defender for Identity is trusted by companies such as St. Luke’s University Health Network, Ansell, and more.
Brinker Capital
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Proofpoint and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: May 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.