Azure Firewall Manager vs Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention comparison

"The tool's support is good."

"It is easy to install and does not require any plugins for your browser."

"Azure Firewall Manager centralizes network security management with a hub and spoke architecture."

"Azure Firewall Manager centralizes network security management with a hub and spoke architecture."

"The solution is very easy to set up."

"The best feature of Azure Firewall Manager is that it is easy to maintain and configure."

"The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration."

"From a traffic management perspective, it's a good firewall because it's automatically scalable based on the traffic availability."

"The most valuable features are identifying sensitive data and issuing alerts."

"When you are going to use Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, most of the setup is already done by default as per your needs."

"If we can prevent information from going out, eventually, when a regulator is asking about our security measures, we can show what we've been doing."

"The impact of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's classification and policy controls on our productivity within our organization is significant, as it's helped our security team."

"We can use Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention to manage devices and site policies."

"Because everything is on Microsoft and we use Azure, integration with the product is easier. That's the most important thing when you use many Microsoft products. It's easier to integrate everything in one place."

"I rate Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's stability a ten out of ten."

"It has helped our clients to reduce the time to action on insider threats because it can be integrated."

"The price is okay. This said, the solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."

"The configuration and settings require substantial time for learning, particularly for new users."

"The tool's security features need to improve. It needs also to include a monitoring system for logs. It is also complicated to find a query on the Azure firewall."

"We could do only one-way NAT-ing, where the traffic comes from outside to internal, to Azure, which is fine. However, when we actually do NAT-ed traffic to hit the firewall, that way is not working."

"The configuration and settings require substantial time for learning, particularly for new users. Improvements in ease of configuration would benefit users significantly."

"The solution can improve the integration with open-source tools."

"There should be a simple one-click deployment for a firewall, rather than a set of setup instructions that include steps such as the DNS configuration, et cetera."

"The cost is a significant concern because we are in a region where the dollar is not our default currency, and converting to dollars makes it very expensive."

"A site can have different containers where you store data. We have always wanted to apply compliance, labels, and policies at the container level, rather than to an outer shell or at the site level. That is something we have been looking forward to and I believe Microsoft is already planning something like that."

"I rate the overall solution 3 out of 10."

"The scalability, in terms of the portal, could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have faced difficulties in identifying the options."

"All the security operations are better defined in Forcepoint, while in Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, you will have to use a specific workflow and then an application to release blocked emails."

"Some main features are limited in comparison to other solutions."

"The platform can be challenging to navigate and has the potential for improvement."

"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's licensing is expensive."

"There is a need for improvements, particularly in ensuring that file-based recognition is more reliable and comprehensive."

"The solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."

"The price of the solution is reasonable but it is reasonable for the features."

"The solution’s pricing is reasonable."

"It is a part of our Microsoft licensing. We pay for a yearly renewal. Its price is reasonable for the size of the organization we are. It is fairly competitive, and you get what you pay for. We have an E5 license, and a part of understanding the E5 license is to see what all you get with it. If you really look at it from that standpoint, you get a lot of value. You have Defender and all its security features in there as well. Their licensing is fairly flexible. They have different programs. We've seen ones where you could pay for up to three to five years in advance. There is also a monthly pay-as-you-go type of deal, but we're doing a yearly renewal and fixing the budget."

"If one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the price as one out of ten."

"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is part of a bundle and is not sold as a standalone product."

"It's a little bit pricey compared to competitors, but it's not too high."

"The cost works out to about $15 per user per month."

"You get the solution in a bundle if you get the E5 suite."

"Though I am not a specialist, the tool is quite expensive."