Azure Firewall Manager vs Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention comparison

"The tool's support is good."

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

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

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

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

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

"The solution is very easy to set up."

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

"One of the valuable features of Purview is the ability to create a legal hold on a user's account within the compliance portal. That's pretty useful when it comes to any litigation or if you want to redeem the content within a mailbox, OneDrive, or a generic public SharePoint site."

"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."

"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."

"The product has improved compliance and confidence. We are aware of the data that is leaving our organization. It provides confidence in data management and information storage."

"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."

"The solution's IDM (Indexed Document Matching), EDM (Exact Data Matching), and DCM (Described Content Matching) features have been most effective in identifying and mitigating potential data leaks."

"The auto-labeling feature is definitely the most valuable feature. It goes in and labels the documents for you in different repositories. It covers the Outlook and Exchange repositories along with SharePoint and OneDrive. It is really helpful in those areas."

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

"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."

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

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

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

"The solution should provide better integration with other systems."

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

"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."

"Improving Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention would involve recognizing that the whole AI path we are all on is going to help, given the massive amount of data we handle; even if there are true positives, implementing a degree of severity ranking is essential."

"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."

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

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

"The AI advancements can improve the false positives."

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

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

"The pricing is reasonable."

"The solution’s pricing is reasonable."

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