We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and Digital Guardian based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison results: Based on the parameters we compared, Forcepoint DLP comes out ahead of Digital Guardian. While the two solutions feature valuable endpoint detection and management tools, Digital Guardian’s support team, as well as its licensing cost leave room for improvement.
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"It has been scalable."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"Some good features are basically its UAV Analytics engine. And even fingerprinting is really good in Forcepoint."
"Technical support has been helpful."
"This solution has a great encryption feature."
"We receive a lot of insights from this product."
"The most useful features of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention are the transfer through Bluetooth can be blocked and the transfer to the cloud-based storage can be blocked. The features are wonderful."
"The solution offers very good sensitive data protection."
"The GUI is very intuitive. That is the way I would explain its ease of use. It is straightforward."
"The Optical Character Recognition (OCR) functionality is another helpful feature, especially for unstructured data. Being able to discover sensitive data in an unstructured format is the most beneficial element of the solution."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"Technical support could be better."
"One area that could be improved is the support. The current support is not very good. Because they don't come on time when a customer really needs it, they take a lot of time to troubleshoot anything."
"You have to monitor the solution all the time."
"It would be better if we could easily integrate with other products. Suppose I want to integrate this DLP with some other CASB solutions or a firewall solution. In that case, it takes a considerable amount of time because Forcepoint DLP doesn't come with a legacy firewall or CASB solutions to integrate with it. We need to do it separately. It's not improvised for different sectors, and I need to look for other solutions. I'm investing a lot of time researching and implementing other solutions for other areas. That is one point where I can't feel satisfied with this Forcepoint DLP. The only problem we have faced is that it consumes most of the CPU whenever a Forcepoint DLP is deployed on an endpoint. This is when users feel some lag in their machine's performance or their Internet performance. That's when we uninstall and try to reinstall, or we'll give a cloud link to which it gets access. We use Forcepoint DLP for endpoint protection, not for email or cloud. For email and drive, we went with the Google DLP. Forcepoint DLP isn't as efficient on drive or chat, or email. For that, we have some specialized solutions, but it would be better to have a single console where you can control all these areas. It would be pretty easy for a consumer who is going to use this product. All in one shot, you can try to track it and enforce your policies on a single dashboard. That is one point currently lacking in Forcepoint, and I feel they need to work on it. In the next release, I would like to use this DLP across different solutions like network, firewall, email, or chat with a consolidated dashboard and with integration facilities with other solutions. Security should work as a whole. It shouldn't work individually in blocks. It does not serve our purpose. It should be integrated with multiple solutions. For that, it should have enough intelligence to work with other tools. I'm looking forward to seeing that kind of capability with Forcepoint."
"The deployment can be difficult."
"If you are a macOS user, there are issues in the area of USB control."
"The price could be reduced to be more cost, effective."
"An area for improvement for Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is its price. It would be good if they could offer better pricing."
"An area for improvement in Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is the complex UI and policy deployment. You have to find the policies, and then designing the policies is also tricky."
More Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews while Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is ranked 2nd in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 51 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention writes "DLP great for encryptions; tech support is quite helpful". Digital Guardian is most compared with Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon and Faronics Deep Freeze, whereas Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector, Zscaler DLP and GTB Technologies Inspector. See our Digital Guardian vs. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention report.
See our list of best Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vendors.
We monitor all Data Loss Prevention (DLP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
