Azure Firewall Manager vs Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention comparison

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

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

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

"The solution has improved our organization with its firewall."

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

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

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

"We are utilizing Azure Entra ID for group labeling, so Active Directory, or now it is Entra ID, securing our application for everyone who accesses it, and Azure Firewall Manager is definitely securing our projects and all its features are fine."

"The solution's most valuable feature is the mature O365 DLP, which works with SharePoint and Teams."

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

"The product can block the uploads to cloud services."

"For Purview's natively integrated compliance across Azure, Dynamics 365, and Office 365, I would give it a 10 out of 10. It provides all the insights and information."

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

"We can triage based on quick and sometimes constant alerts."

"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's responses are faster. Its installation is also reliable. The security score helps with the security part."

"Microsoft Purview has helped improve my company's ability to discover sensitive data, as most companies would say that they improved in the whole posture on this field."

"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."

"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."

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

"Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling deployment, and traffic management, which leads to higher costs."

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

"For Azure Firewall Manager, the learning curve for new people is a bit challenging, but the integration should be more straightforward for configuring a centralized system."

"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 see that there's a lot of content in Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, and when I click on it and look around, I wonder what certain features do, but there's not enough documentation and explanation."

"There is no AIP for Linux systems. That's a setback. Another thing it's lacking is libraries to work with Python. It has libraries for C# and C++, for example, but not for Python and, these days, Python is very useful."

"Endpoint Data Loss Prevention needs to be improved as it is not up to expectations."

"There is a lot of ambiguity when you are setting up labels, such as sensitive information labels. It is a little daunting at first if you don't have prior knowledge, and there is a little bit of a learning curve for setting up the labels. Some of the setup wizards could be more helpful from an AI perspective. They can streamline the setup through more AI technologies so that you don't have to jump through so many hoops and different menus and dropdowns. It would be useful to have a setup wizard that is more hands-off and engaging for setting up the information type labels. If you tell them this is what we're trying to protect, it should basically start to lead you down that path of best practices. Such a feature would be great."

"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."

"Technical support is awful."

"The main disadvantages of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention in comparison to the Netscope product are notable considerations."

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

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

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

"We are using the E3 license for Microsoft 365 with the E5 compliance license add-on."

"The solution’s pricing is reasonable."

"I am satisfied with the tool's pricing."

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

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

"The pricing is reasonable."

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