Pro-Vigil writes the best marketing copy in remote video monitoring. The hero says "Stop Crime Now." The counter on the homepage ticks up: crimes deterred, intruders intervened, arrests. The service claim is "24 seconds, on average" for operator response, and "deter 97% of intruders before they can commit a crime." The voice is challenger-direct: we actually do it.
We respect the copy. We also have to be honest about what the numbers mean — and where Pro-Vigil's model fits versus where ours does. Buyers compare us to Pro-Vigil more often than to anyone else, and the question we hear most is some version of: "They say 24 seconds. What do you say?"
Here's the real answer.
What Pro-Vigil is good at
- Sharp, outcome-led copy. Their site says what their service does in plain English. That's rare in this category.
- Auto dealership vertical depth. Pro-Vigil over-indexes on dealerships. They've published case studies, they understand inventory flow, lot layouts, lighting realities at dealer sites, and the specific theft patterns (catalytic converters, key fobs, vehicle theft from open lots). For a dealer group, they are a credible incumbent.
- Real certifications. TMA Five Diamond, UL Certified (BP21472), Texas DPS and OK state licenses. Table-stakes for a serious provider and they have them.
- Operator-facing audio talk-down. They lead with live audio intervention as the deterrent moment, which is the correct operational hook for this category.
If you're a dealer principal at a 3-store auto group in Texas or Oklahoma looking at remote monitoring, Pro-Vigil is a defensible choice. Talk to them.
What the numbers actually mean
The two headline claims need unpacking.
"24 seconds average response." Average is doing work in that sentence. There is no published methodology — what counts as a "response"? Operator viewing the alert? Operator deciding the alert is a true positive? Operator pressing the talk-down trigger? Each definition produces a different number, and "average" hides the long-tail events that actually matter (the 4-minute response on a Saturday at 3 a.m. when traffic spikes). We don't dispute that Pro-Vigil engages quickly on most events. We do say that a published average without methodology is not the same as a contractual SLA.
Our version: operator engages on a verified alert within 30 seconds (median). It's written into the contract, not posted as a marketing claim. If we miss the SLA we tell you, in writing, with timestamps.
"Deter 97% of intruders before they can commit a crime." This is the claim we will not match and recommend buyers question. There is no public methodology — no sample size, no definition of "intruder," no definition of "deter," no third-party verification, no time window. It's a fine marketing number; it's not a defensible operational claim. We carry our own internal deterrence data and we will share specific case outcomes on a sales call. We will not publish a deterrence percentage without disclosed methodology, because we'd rather be smaller and credible than larger and unsourced.
This isn't trash-talk — it's a category problem. ECAM publishes "99% detection accuracy." Sonitrol publishes "police respond 400% faster." Sirix publishes "AI filters 90% of false alarms." None of them show their work. Operators have started noticing.
Where Pro-Vigil's model differs from ours
Vertical focus. Pro-Vigil leans dealership. We lean construction and multifamily. Both verticals have plenty of overlap (perimeter sites, off-hours risk, audio talk-down as the operational tool), but the operational playbooks differ. Construction sites have rotating crews, changing site layouts week to week, and tool/material/copper theft as the dominant loss. Multifamily has resident traffic, package theft, vehicle break-ins, and amenity-area liability. We've built our operator playbooks around those patterns.
Pricing transparency. Pro-Vigil does not publish pricing. We publish ranges at /pricing. Buyers comparing the two get a real number from us before the first call.
SLA wording. Pro-Vigil markets an average. We sign a contractual median engagement window. Different artifact entirely.
Camera flexibility. Both providers integrate with most IP cameras. We've documented our existing-hardware audit process publicly and quote against your current cameras before recommending changes. Pro-Vigil's hardware approach is less public.
Geography. Pro-Vigil's strongest footprint is Texas / Oklahoma / Sun Belt. We operate primarily California and Arizona with growing presence in the Southwest. If your portfolio is concentrated in Texas, Pro-Vigil has local-response familiarity we don't yet match.
Side-by-side, by buyer profile
Auto dealer group, 3+ stores, Texas/OK — Pro-Vigil has the vertical depth and the regional footprint. Get their quote. Get ours too if you want a transparent-pricing comparison.
Construction GC, 2-15 active sites, CA/AZ/Southwest — We are the better fit. Construction operator playbook, local response familiarity, no-rip-and-replace, transparent pricing.
Multifamily operator, 5+ properties — We are usually the better fit for the reasons above. Pro-Vigil can serve this vertical but it's not their published focus.
Single-site commercial, sub-$3M valuation — Either provider works. Ask both for SLA in writing. Compare the wording, not the marketing claims.
Enterprise national, 50+ sites — Neither of us is the right answer. Look at ECAM. We've written about that separately.
What we won't do
We won't claim 24-second response. We won't claim 97% deterrence. We won't publish a counter that ticks up "crimes prevented" without telling you exactly what counts. We'd rather lose a deal to better marketing than win one on a number we can't defend.
What we will do: send you our SLA, show you our published pricing ranges, walk through your existing cameras, give you a deployment timeline measured in weeks not months, and tell you whether we think we're a fit. Sometimes we say no — we send those buyers to ECAM or Pro-Vigil with a real recommendation rather than fight for a deal we shouldn't win.
That's the honest version. Get quotes from both. Read the SLA wording carefully. Pick the vendor whose marketing claims you can still defend after the contract is signed.