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

ManageEngine DataSecurity vs Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 3, 2024

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

ManageEngine DataSecurity
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
42nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Netskope Data Loss Preventi...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
16th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) category, the mindshare of ManageEngine DataSecurity is 0.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is 2.1%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)2.1%
ManageEngine DataSecurity0.8%
Other97.1%
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
 

Featured Reviews

GM
IT Systems Administrator at Prokhas Sdn Bhd
Affordable and provides visibility into what the users are doing with the data
The file integrity monitoring feature is difficult to manage because some files are confidential while others are not. We use a different tool to classify the files as confidential and non-confidential. The sensitive data discovery and classification features are not of much help. It is a difficult process. The controlling features must be improved. The interface must be improved.
reviewer1595751 - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Manager at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Has improved sensitive data detection while requiring better support for data-at-rest scanning and classification
Data in transit works quite well and operates in near real-time. However, data at rest scanning operates under separate licensing, and it would be beneficial to examine applications where the location of sensitive data is unknown. Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) could improve data-at-rest scanning capabilities. Regarding DLP-specific improvements, data-at-rest scanning could be enhanced in terms of the applications supported, as coverage is currently limited to a restricted set of enterprise applications. Expanding application coverage would be beneficial. Additionally, data-at-rest scans should be made easier and faster to execute. Most solutions lack Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) functionality, and this capability is not yet mature. A significant limitation is that Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) does not support out-of-the-box data classification. Third-party integrations must be relied upon instead, whereas having built-in data classification support would be advantageous.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product’s strict policies are its best features."
"The detection and alert features are valuable."
"I find Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) easier and more appealing than Zscaler."
"The product provides visibility to manage sensitive data and control access."
"The Real-Time Analytics and Reporting capabilities of Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) are good and up to the mark."
"Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) provides predefined templates, indexed data matching, EDM, and OCR capabilities, and the role functionality provides significant information, and considerable automation has been built on top of the platform using the available APIs."
"The product is flexible."
 

Cons

"The vendor must provide a cloud solution."
"The interface must be improved."
"Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) can be improved primarily because we were looking for any other provider due to the ZTNA feature that we were scoping from Netskope."
"The product should be compatible with multiple file formats."
"I rate the pricing a seven out of ten. The pricing is moderate."
"I have not seen any benefits from this real-time analysis at this time."
"Technical support has been rated low. Numerous bugs have been discovered in terms of functionality, and the support team takes considerable time to resolve these issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is reasonable."
"The pricing is moderate."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)?
Data in transit works quite well and operates in near real-time. However, data at rest scanning operates under separate licensing, and it would be beneficial to examine applications where the locat...
What is your primary use case for Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)?
Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is being used as a Secure Services Engine (SSE) solution for the CASB solution, Shadow IT detection, and Secure Web Gateway capabilities. The primary focus is on...
What advice do you have for others considering Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP)?
Remediation involves blocking specific communications when users attempt to upload sensitive information. Users should be provided with an interface to request exceptions in real-time for business-...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about ManageEngine DataSecurity vs. Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.