We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Scalability-wise, I rate this solution a nine out of ten."
"One of the most valuable features is being able to see file movement, where files are going. Every week we review the files. It can identify software codes, so we code files and we know where they're going and who's doing what. It gives us visibility."
"Forcepoint offers many policies that conform to global DLP best practices, including requirements specific to regions like the Middle East, Europe, etc. They have a policy database in their product. That feature is unique to Forcepoint. Their AI and fingerprinting are incredibly effective and robust. We have tested it multiple times. It always catches the correct data being leaked."
"Stable and scalable solution for data protection. It offers good technical support, and has no major installation issues."
"I like that you can quickly create policies and enforce them in a matter of minutes."
"The built-in rules, templates, and content classifiers are among the most valuable features. Some of the built-in patterns are good places to get started with. Along with the phrases, they are helpful in putting together policies and fine-tuning our policies."
"A very user-friendly predefining feature."
"The Forcepoint tool is well developed. It is ranked in many evaluations at the top when it comes to enterprise DLP solutions. It has good artificial intelligence that enables our customers to focus on specific incidents, instead of having a complicated list of uncategorized incidents."
"There's a good amount of documentation in case you run into any problems."
"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 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."
"It has helped our clients to reduce the time to action on insider threats because it can be integrated."
"The user-friendliness of the interface in formulating DLP policies could be improved. An example would be managing policies. It's a little daunting at first, and can be confusing, at times, when it comes to how to set things up and how to add policies. They could improve on that."
"Their discovery or the way they discover the data at risk can also be improved. There are many database servers that are not supported by Forcepoint."
"There is room for improvement regarding OCR. I would like to see it enhanced to handle multiple languages and it should be easier to manage."
"Everything takes a long time, as it does in every software company, especially since COVID. That is something I notice with every product I use."
"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."
"An area for improvement for Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is its price. It would be good if they could offer better pricing."
"The post-optical character recognization feature could be improved because it only really works on documents with some length (at least three paragraphs)."
"The APIs for device integration are limited, so that could be improved."
"Technical support is awful."
"I would like Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention to be on the source code or SQL databases. It is difficult to do classification and labeling when you have a third-party source code or a third-party Oracle database. It is seamless when it comes to Microsoft documents but is not so with third-party source codes. Microsoft needs to work on it a little bit more."
"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."
"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."
More Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is ranked 3rd in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 26 reviews while Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is ranked 6th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 4 reviews. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention writes "Good interface, powerful OCR and data discovery capabilities, customizable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention writes "Gives us great visibility into data governance, and integration with Microsoft solutions is easier". Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Digital Guardian, Endpoint Protector, Zscaler Cloud DLP and GTB Technologies Inspector, whereas Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Zscaler Cloud DLP, Amazon Macie, Digital Guardian and McAfee Total Protection for Data Loss Prevention. See our Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs. Microsoft Purview 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.
