We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and Zscaler DLP 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."The technical support for the solution is very good."
"A very user-friendly predefining feature."
"The product is good and reliable. The vendor company is continually improving it and they seem to stay one step ahead."
"The integration is great."
"I like the SaaS solution they're offering now a little bit more. It's a new product but it's easy to install and configure."
"We appreciate the user-friendliness and ease of implementation of the Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention platform. The availability of the vendor support team is an added advantage."
"It's fast and it prepares loss reports."
"Forcepoint DLP's most valuable feature is that it provides complete end-to-end security."
"On DLP terms, Zscaler Cloud DLP ensures that data doesn't go outside of the organization. So on the network level, Zscaler does a pretty good job."
"The policies are very easy to implement."
"The customer service and support are very good."
"The solution is the best for storage."
"Zscaler Cloud DLP provides you with basic DLP features that you get out of the box such as keywords, regular expressions, and data identifiers, for example, your social security numbers, and credit card numbers, with everything built into the product, so you can directly use those features within the policies. You don't need to create it from scratch, and to me, this is the biggest benefit of Zscaler Cloud DLP. You have a lot of templates to choose from in the solution, rather than having to create templates from scratch or reinvent templates."
"It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable aspect of Zscaler Cloud DLP is its automatic DLP feature."
"Its impressive scalability allows the combination of multiple dictionaries and using them as one engine, resulting in narrower data loss gaps."
"With respect to the discovery component, the reports are very hard to interpret because they come out in an illogical format."
"The policy update size and agent size could be improved. We would also like to have a proper solution for Linux OS which Forcepoint does not offer."
"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's zero Forcepoint presence in West Africa. Customers typically like having these things close to them. It would help if they had a presence here. Right now, Forcepoint West Africa has been administered from South Africa. Because of this, customers can't access premium support in our region."
"The initial setup is a bit complex. You will need help from the peer support team in the configuration."
"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 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."
"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."
"The tool must provide IP-blocking features."
"The product must allow users to check logs for an entire year in the local console."
"They should work on a replica account. There could be alerts and replica files sent to the DLP team during data collection."
"We have issues with the tool's maintenance and networking. It should be able to work in offline mode as well."
"There aren't really any missing features that I have witnessed."
"Another area of improvement is implementation through non-client connectors. The solution can be implemented in two ways. One uses the back file; the other one uses client connectors. So the client connector is pretty fast, but when it comes to non-client connectors and procedures, it's kind of delayed and slow."
"There could be additional ways to define proximity. Additionally, they should provide some exclusion options for specific policies and an ability to control the DLP engine."
"On the improvement side, when we bypass certain internet traffic types, it's currently recommended to have a one-click option, but audio and video aren't always supported. Thus, we need to bypass that kind of traffic. So, it is an area of improvement."
More Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is ranked 2nd in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 51 reviews while Zscaler DLP is ranked 4th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 15 reviews. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.0, while Zscaler DLP is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention writes "DLP great for encryptions; tech support is quite helpful". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler DLP writes "Provides a range of security measures to protect network traffic". Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Digital Guardian, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector and GTB Technologies Inspector, whereas Zscaler DLP is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector, Varonis Platform and Digital Guardian. See our Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs. Zscaler DLP 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.
