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

Proofpoint Email Protection vs VMRay 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

Proofpoint Email Protection
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
106
Ranking in other categories
Email Security (1st), Digital Risk Protection (3rd), Office 365 Protection (1st), Secure Email Gateway (SEG) (1st)
VMRay
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
32nd
Average Rating
5.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Proofpoint Email Protection is 3.6%, down from 11.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of VMRay is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Proofpoint Email Protection3.6%
VMRay1.3%
Other95.1%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

Siva_Prasad - PeerSpot reviewer
Principal Consultant at Infosys
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.
GC
Pre-Sales at Frux
Has a valuable IP tracing feature, but is an expensive solution
We use this solution for authorization and more on the false positive verification IP tracing is the most valuable feature. The technical support needs improvement.  I have been using VMRay for two and a half years. The technical support team is not good.  Negative The initial setup is…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Provides better control over emails, especially those sent via Office 365 on the cloud."
"I have witnessed a positive impact of Proofpoint Email Protection on my organization, having worked for one of the world's largest organizations that uses Proofpoint consistently for email security."
"Proofpoint Email Protection positively impacts my organization because it is a simpler solution in terms of user interaction compared to my previous email gateway, and its detection capabilities are considerably more advanced."
"Proofpoint Email Protection has definitely impacted my organization positively."
"The setup was easy."
"Using Proofpoint Email Protection has significantly improved SOC analyst workloads for my customers by enhancing response times and adding value through built-in threat investigation tools."
"Proofpoint Email Protection has positively impacted my organization by simplifying the analysis of emails since it provides segregated statements that highlight the important parameters we need to check, allowing us to efficiently conclude if the alerts are false positives or true positives."
"Proofpoint is the main tool for blocking spam because it denies the connection altogether."
"IP tracing is the most valuable feature."
 

Cons

"Their technical support is mediocre. It could be better."
"Regarding improvements, the search in Proofpoint Email Protection is a bit slow sometimes; if it was quicker, it could probably improve the search a little bit."
"One major threat is QR code phishing, along with TOAD (Telephone-Oriented Attack Delivery). TOAD attacks don't include links, URLs, or attachments in emails. Instead, attackers try to trick you into calling them, often by offering something enticing like a 50% discount on football matches."
"Proofpoint is a little bit expensive."
"The scalability can be improved, and the solution can be optimized."
"Filtering false positives is highly challenging because it is impossible for humans to identify which emails are genuine and which are spam."
"I feel Proofpoint Email Protection can be improved by providing a better user experience."
"Regarding improvements or enhancements in Proofpoint Email Protection, I find the platform somewhat chaotic. It has too many different sections that perform the same function, which is very confusing."
"The technical support needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing has recently been increased and the cost is a downside"
"The solution uses a licensing model that is reasonable compared to other products."
"Annually, it costs us about $92,000. This is pretty much what it costs us. There is no additional cost."
"I rate the price of Proofpoint Email Protection a four out of five."
"The solution charges per user per month to use it. There are not any additional fees in addition to the standard living fees."
"We sell annual licenses for this solution."
"Proofpoint Email Protection has comparable pricing."
"Proofpoint is fairly expensive."
"The solution is overly priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business28
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise59
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Proofpoint Email Protection?
I am not informed about the pricing, setup costs, or licensing as it is handled by a different team. I come from a technical perspective.
What needs improvement with Proofpoint Email Protection?
For improvement, the dashboard of Proofpoint Email Protection needs some enhancement. Currently, we are using multiple dashboards, and it would be beneficial if everything was integrated. A single ...
What is your primary use case for Proofpoint Email Protection?
In our environment, we are using Proofpoint Email Protection for inbound email protection as a primary gateway, while Microsoft 365 serves as the secondary gateway. In the primary gateway, it scans...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint Digital Protection
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Blocket, University of Waterloo, Lincoln Memorial University, WellSpan Health, U-Haul, Carestream Health, Westinghouse
National Bank of Canada, Carbon Black, Cloudmark, Cyberint, Expel, G Data Advanced Analytics, Jisc
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Proofpoint and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.