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

Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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

Palo Alto Networks WildFire
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire is 7.4%, down from 11.5% 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 (%)
Palo Alto Networks WildFire7.4%
Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection1.3%
Other91.3%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

RK
Engineer at Taalumgroup
Achieve effective threat prevention and seamless integration with powerful technical support
Integration with third-party products is possible. For example, connecting a mail gateway with Palo Alto Networks WildFire allows them to handle prevention. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is a cloud-based sandboxing solution. The firewall is connected to WildFire, and XDR performs sandboxing from the cloud. WildFire conducts malware scanning and emulation, then informs the firewall to block threats based on the response. It also generates reports regarding malware and other issues. The sandboxing process involves sending sample files to the cloud for scanning, checking file authenticity, certificates, and detecting malicious code. WildFire performs multiple checks and informs the XDR agent about file status. This automatic process occurs within minutes or seconds. For unknown or suspicious files, immediate blocking occurs while samples are sent to WildFire for identification. I rate Palo Alto Networks WildFire a 9 out of 10.
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

"Palo Alto Networks WildFire is a very comprehensive device."
"The most valuable feature of Wildfire is its sandboxing capability for examining suspicious files or locations."
"I give the initial setup an eight out of ten."
"We get support in the free version."
"The product is the best."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is how it keeps up-to-date with viruses."
"The reporting feature helps our performance."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is how it keeps up-to-date with viruses."
"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 price could be better."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The product's false positive logs could be more user-friendly to understand. They could provide examples of precious cases to learn."
"The only complaint that we receive from our customers is in regards to the price."
"Any enhancements should likely be focused on the firewall appliance to further strengthen overall security capabilities, such as refining app and user identity features."
"The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire."
"In my opinion, it could be developed to be dependent not only on signatures, but also on patterns and behavior of malware."
"The data analytical system for deployment needs to improve."
"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

"​More expensive than other firewalls.​"
"WildFire is a little bit pricey. Sometimes it's difficult to sell it to customers at the current price."
"The price is expensive but is reasonable considering overall functionality."
"Pricing could be improved."
"The pricing and licensing option should be categorized for various countries such as for Bangladesh."
"I think they should lower the price of this solution"
"The price of Palo Alto Networks WildFire could improve. It is expensive. There is an annual subscription to use the solution."
"The pricing is highly expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user206346 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Consultant at Webernetz.net - Network Security Consulting
Mar 11, 2015
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto Networks
Cisco ASA vs. Palo Alto: Management Goodies You often have comparisons of both firewalls concerning security components. Of course, a firewall must block attacks, scan for viruses, build VPNs, etc. However, in this post I am discussing the advantages and disadvantages from both vendors concerning…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business38
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise29
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall compare with Palo Alto Networks Wildfire?
The Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall is a very powerful and very complex piece of anti-viral software. When one considers that fact, it is all the more impressive that the setup is a fairly straightf...
Which is better - Wildfire or FortiGate?
FortiGate has a lot going for it and I consider it to be the best, most user-friendly firewall out there. What I like the most about it is that it has an attractive web dashboard with very easy nav...
How does Cisco ASA Firewall compare with Palo Alto's WildFire?
When looking to change our ASA Firewall, we looked into Palo Alto’s WildFire. It works especially in preventing advanced malware and zero-day exploits with real-time intelligence. The sandbox featu...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Targeted Attack Protection
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Novamedia, Nexon Asia Pacific, Lenovo, Samsonite, IOOF, Sinogrid, SanDisk Corporation
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.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.