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

Proofpoint Email Protection vs Vade for M365 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

Proofpoint Email Protection
Ranking in Email Security
1st
Ranking in Office 365 Protection
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), Secure Email Gateway (SEG) (1st)
Vade for M365
Ranking in Email Security
33rd
Ranking in Office 365 Protection
10th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Office 365 Protection category, the mindshare of Proofpoint Email Protection is 24.2%, up from 21.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Vade for M365 is 5.2%, up from 4.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Office 365 Protection Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Proofpoint Email Protection24.2%
Vade for M3655.2%
Other70.6%
Office 365 Protection
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Bruno Rolland - PeerSpot reviewer
Commercial Director at DC Communication (DCC)
A stable tool capable of detecting malware while focusing on anti-phishing to protect its users
I don't see ISO 27001 in the solution. While working on the solution, sometimes a customer needs to have a conformity level of SOC 1 or SOC 2 or some other conformity level. I did not see the aforementioned conformity levels added to the solution. Concerning a bank, data can be confidential, and when a bank needs to transfer such data, it has to be specific to a certain level of conformity, which I did not see in the product. Vade needs to incorporate the aforementioned aspects to improve their solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Overall, using Proofpoint Email Protection has positively impacted our security posture, and we are using multiple products in Proofpoint, including DLP and email protection, and the real-time experience has us very satisfied."
"The most valuable feature of Proofpoint Email Protection is the central location dashboard for viewing all the related information for risk."
"URL scanning and online relay service are the most valuable features of Proofpoint Email Protection."
"Overall, we've been happy with the product and the results we've gotten."
"Proofpoint Email Protection has positively impacted my organization because it has done its job; the company we support does not have any sort of vulnerability attacks by having it in place."
"Out of these three, no other email gateway can be compared with Proofpoint Email Protection."
"Proofpoint Email Protection provides quite comprehensive protection."
"Proofpoint Email Protection is a very robust solution."
"It is a stable solution...My company has no worries about the deployment phase of Vade for Office 365."
 

Cons

"Sometimes it doesn't detect actual spam emails, and sometimes it catches normal emails."
"Proofpoint Email Protection could improve by reducing the price."
"Phishing detection could improve further to match some of the capabilities offered by competitors."
"The false positives are an issue."
"The flexibility of the solution can be improved."
"You only receive one model in Proofpoint Email Protection and the other ones you have to purchase at a high price. There should be more available with the solution and additional models should be less expensive."
"Some of the old portal features of Proofpoint Email Protection are missing in the new portal, so some of the settings could be modernized."
"Given my other experience with other vendors, I think they are a bit on the high end and a bit on the pricey end for the email security functionality that we were using."
"Concerning a bank, data can be confidential, and when a bank needs to transfer such data, it has to be specific to a certain level of conformity, which I did not see in the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the price of Proofpoint Email Protection a four out of five."
"We sell annual licenses for this solution."
"The solution is expensive."
"The solution charges per user per month to use it. There are not any additional fees in addition to the standard living fees."
"The price is reasonable."
"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."
"Vade for Office 365 is a solution offered at competitive prices in the market...Payment has to be made for the whole bundle of Vade products."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Office 365 Protection solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Retailer
20%
Construction Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint Digital Protection
Vade for Office 365, Vade Secure Office 365
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Blocket, University of Waterloo, Lincoln Memorial University, WellSpan Health, U-Haul, Carestream Health, Westinghouse
HTG 360, Weida IT Solutions, KVC Health Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about Proofpoint, Mimecast, Sophos and others in Office 365 Protection. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.