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

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP vs Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 8, 2026

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

Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Pr...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
43rd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Purview Data Loss...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) category, the mindshare of Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is 0.9%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is 5.5%, down from 10.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention5.5%
Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP0.9%
Other93.6%
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Cyber Security Engineer at Infratech Co
Policy management has improved data protection but configuration and encrypted traffic remain challenging
In my perspective, there are several things that need to be improved in Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP, such as the inability to monitor some encrypted data or data leaking in incognito mode. Additionally, Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP cannot monitor encrypted applications such as Microsoft Teams because it is end-to-end encrypted. In terms of additional features, there are many aspects of Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP that need improvement. Right now, two or three items are necessary, such as testing every policy to make sure they are configured correctly. We cannot go directly to production due to the extensive fine-tuning required, which typically takes two to three weeks to monitor the policy after customization. A lot of time has been consumed in the two to three weeks needed, which is something that should be reduced. Additionally, concerning the predefined policies, we cannot see the backend condition or backend script, which makes it difficult to modify the predefined policy.
Rohit Jaiswar - PeerSpot reviewer
Soc Anaylst at Softcell Technologies Limited
Integrated controls have reduced insider risk and now protect sensitive data across our workforce
One standout feature about Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is the tight integration with Insider Risk Management and Defender XDR, as it gives much better context during investigations instead of treating DLP as an isolated alerting tool. We also use endpoint DLP heavily to control USB, copy, print, clipboard, and browser upload activity, which has been very effective for remote workforce security. The best features Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention offers include real-time policy enforcement, endpoint DLP, and deep integration with Microsoft 365 plus Defender XDR. We also heavily rely on sensitive information type detection, adaptive policy tips, and insider risk integration to investigate suspicious user behavior with proper context. Another standout feature is the ability to control USB copy, browser uploads, print clipboards, and cloud sharing actions directly from endpoint policies. The integration with Microsoft Defender 365 and Defender XDR helps our team in day-to-day operations because DLP alerts are automatically correlated with endpoint identity, email, and user activity telemetry, which helps the SOC investigate incidents much faster from a single workflow. The sensitive information type detection makes a difference compared to other tools we have used because it is more effective than many legacy DLP tools. It understands context, exact data patterns, document labeling, and Microsoft 365 native content, reducing false positives while improving detection accuracy. Another strong feature of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is auto-labeling and policy inheritance with Microsoft's Information Protection, which helps maintain protection even after files are shared or moved across workloads. We also value the user coaching or policy tip capability because it educates users in real time instead of only blocking actions, which reduces repeated DLP violations significantly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is purely a DLP-based solution, which makes it the best option available."
"The most valuable features in Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP include policy management and endpoint status, as well as supplementary servers, OCR, IRR, and additional features."
"It primarily influences policy enforcement, cloud application access control, and endpoint network coverage."
"We chose Forcepoint as part of our cybersecurity strategy, and one of the key expectations was to prevent data leakage."
"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 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."
"Microsoft Purview has helped improve our organization's ability to discover sensitive data significantly as we use eDiscovery Purview, which is incredibly helpful."
"There's a good amount of documentation in case you run into any problems."
"It's secure and can be integrated with an existing Forcepoint DLP setup."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention makes it way easier to prevent unauthorized sharing of sensitive information within the organization."
"The solution is very stable and extremely reliable."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention has absolutely helped improve my organization's ability to manage data because we use M365 for the majority of our knowledge worker storage, and that's where people's data lives."
 

Cons

"The deployment is a little bit difficult. It requires two to three separate servers for databases and the application."
"The SaaS solution needs improvement, especially the malware-centric part, although the CASB is better but mostly data-centric. The after-sale support could also be improved."
"From an end user's perspective, it's not always clear what's happening with the DLP. It would be beneficial to have more use cases available, perhaps on a countrywide basis."
"In my perspective, there are several things that need to be improved in Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP, such as the inability to monitor some encrypted data or data leaking in incognito mode."
"They do not provide language options beyond the ones already available, so our language option is missing."
"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."
"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."
"Because it's an academic institution, we got really excited about the level of granularity we could implement, but that granularity overwhelmed our users."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention could be improved with simpler policy configuration, a more robust reporting dashboard, and better support for third-party applications outside the Microsoft ecosystem."
"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."
"The amount of false positives and the hash issue we had have brought down the score for me."
"The solution should provide better integration with other systems."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing cost is roughly 90 US dollars per year, per license."
"We are using the E3 license for Microsoft 365 with the E5 compliance license add-on."
"You get the solution in a bundle if you get the E5 suite."
"It's a little bit pricey compared to competitors, but it's not too high."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"If one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the price as one out of ten."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is part of a bundle and is not sold as a standalone product."
"The solution’s pricing is reasonable."
"The cost works out to about $15 per user per month."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions are best for your needs.
921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP?
Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP is very costly, especially in Sri Lanka, but the compliance ROI justifies the investment.
What needs improvement with Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP?
In my perspective, there are several things that need to be improved in Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP, such as the inability to monitor some encrypted data or data leaking in incognit...
What is your primary use case for Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP?
I have experience with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and Netwrix Endpoint Protector, as I am currently working with both. My experience is primarily with Forcepoint. I am mostly working with Forc...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
The pricing for Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention was manageable for us because we already had Microsoft 365 and Purview-related licensing, but advanced DLP and insider risk features became ex...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention can be improved as the endpoint DLP policy tuning can be complex in large environments, especially when balancing security with user productivity. False posit...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is used for monitoring and preventing sensitive data exfiltration across Exchange Online, Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive, and endpoints. From a SOC's perspective...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft Endpoint Data Loss Prevention, MS Endpoint DLP, Microsoft Endpoint DLP
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint Risk Adaptive Protection for DLP vs. Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.