No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Digital Guardian vs Wave Systems Safend Data Protection Suite comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Digital Guardian
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
18th
Ranking in Mobile Data Protection
3rd
Average Rating
6.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Encryption (6th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (26th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (54th)
Wave Systems Safend Data Pr...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
52nd
Ranking in Mobile Data Protection
8th
Average Rating
6.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) category, the mindshare of Digital Guardian is 2.8%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Wave Systems Safend Data Protection Suite is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Digital Guardian2.8%
Wave Systems Safend Data Protection Suite0.6%
Other96.6%
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
 

Featured Reviews

Syed Mubeen - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Researcher at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Enterprise data protection has supported regulatory compliance and integrates with classification tools
In terms of functionality, many features are valuable in Digital Guardian, as the first thing for most customers is that they are using solutions such as Boldon James and Titus, which fall under the classification side, and Digital Guardian can easily integrate with this data classification solution and has a very granular level of configuration and policy tuning. Digital Guardian's data protection policies are indeed useful for my clients. Regarding Digital Guardian, I find it to be a very good solution, and in fact, it is an enterprise-level solution that has very tight integration with most of the products, with Fortra but also with others.
it_user116502 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Expert at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
I like the device control. This solution helps us manage risk. Re-installation kills machines. To remove a machine, you have to perform a full reimage.
The most valuable feature is device control This solution helps us manage risk. I would like to see a better upgrade path and process. There are no major issues with the product, but there are major issues with the local reseller and their ability to support us. We have been using this solution…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"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."
"Regarding Digital Guardian, I find it to be a very good solution, and in fact, it is an enterprise-level solution that has very tight integration with most of the products, with Fortra but also with others."
"So if you look at enterprise data loss prevention this solution is the best."
"Data security is now one of the most important aspects for any organization."
"Digital Guardian has cloud correlation servers which give you visibility, work like EDR, and the correlation servers are like a perfect instrument for security analysts."
"The strong impact of Digital Guardian on my organization is in preventing sensitive data leaks to USB, email, and cloud, and in blocking unauthorized access in real time."
"It has been scalable."
"The most valuable feature is device control."
 

Cons

"My biggest lesson learned from dealing with this product is that they commit to something but they don't deliver it."
"I think the whole system needs improvement, even though it works fine the way they designed it."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently."
"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."
"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."
"For vendor support, such as Fortra support, I would rate it a seven because all the support comes from different parts that sometimes have challenges meeting time zones, and sometimes they reroute to distributors and rely on partners."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"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."
"Once the solution is installed, it cannot be installed again without killing machines."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten because Digital Guardian is expensive."
"Digital Guardian has both, subscription and perpetual licenses, but I think when everything (all technologies) will go to the cloud they will only offer subscriptions."
"The price of Digital Guardian is on the higher end compared to other vendors."
"The cost was around $300,000."
"The price of Digital Guardian is expensive."
"If I compare Digital Guardian with Symantec, the license cost is lower, but McAfee can be cheaper than Digital Guardian. It depends on how many licenses you plan to buy and how big the project is. The cost is not so high as Symantec, but not as cheap as McAfee. They can easily sell the solution for price."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions are best for your needs.
912,517 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Large Enterprise4
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Digital Guardian?
In my experience, the area closest for improvement is the occurrence of strong false positives. Digital Guardian can generate false positives initially, which can be significantly reduced through p...
What is your primary use case for Digital Guardian?
My main use case for Digital Guardian is to prevent or stop sensitive data from being copied to USB, email, or cloud, with an example being the blocking of confidential files from being sent via em...
What advice do you have for others considering Digital Guardian?
Digital Guardian has significantly improved incident response time by providing real-time detection, instant alerts, and automatic policy enforcement to stop data leakage immediately, which is my s...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Safend Data Protection Suite
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

The Fifth Avenue Theatre, Jabil Circuit
National Health Service (NHS) Wales
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Forcepoint, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Data Loss Prevention (DLP). Updated: August 2026.
912,517 professionals have used our research since 2012.