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

IPRO vs Microsoft Purview eDiscovery comparison

 

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

IPRO
Ranking in eDiscovery
24th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Purview eDiscovery
Ranking in eDiscovery
1st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the eDiscovery category, the mindshare of IPRO is 1.1%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview eDiscovery is 9.0%, down from 27.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
eDiscovery Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Purview eDiscovery9.0%
IPRO1.1%
Other89.9%
eDiscovery
 

Featured Reviews

Frank Radeck - PeerSpot reviewer
Director, IT Infrastructure & Cloud Technology at a legal firm with 501-1,000 employees
Tasks that took an entire day before we implemented the solution now take just 30 minutes.
The most valuable feature of Microsoft Purview eDiscovery is its ability to search across various platforms, including Exchange, SharePoint, Teams, and OneDrive. It enables a streamlined, unified process for searching across these platforms. It is critical for Purview to be able to connect to iOS, Mac, and Android devices and data in other SaaS apps. From a support perspective, I can do things while I'm eating lunch or something else. It's more dynamic and responsive. I think everybody appreciates it. We're not tied to one device. Purview's multi-cloud capabilities are also essential for the same reasons. Keeping everything under one umbrella further increases the time savings. Purview accounts for critical regulations from around the world. This is crucial because we hold ourselves accountable to standards and need to align with them. Working at a law firm, we have clients who dictate to us what standards they expect. The visibility is excellent. As we move more things into the cloud, more opportunities exist to put everything under one umbrella.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which eDiscovery solutions are best for your needs.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Government
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
7%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Purview eDiscovery?
The setup process was very straightforward. We acquired pricing through our reseller in NASDAQ, eliminating the need to search for prices ourselves.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Purview eDiscovery?
The query language can be time-consuming to figure out if you don't know it initially. While there are options with dropdowns to select criteria, having a natural language feature would be benefici...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Purview eDiscovery?
I sometimes use it for legal holds or to find lost items, and to determine what is going on. However, most of the time, my use case is legal-related.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Polsinelli Shughart, doeLegal, Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, ProSearch Strategies, Levi and Korsinsky LLP, Commonwealth Legal, Manning Curtis, Shephard Data Services, Keating Meuthing & Klekamp PLL, Berger Singerman, Porter Wright, Yarmuth Wilsdon
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Google, Commvault and others in eDiscovery. Updated: March 2026.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.