Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
5.8
Microsoft Defender is essential and affordable for users, offering cost advantages over AWS, despite unclear individual financial benefits.
Sentiment score
7.0
Microsoft Purview DLP offers cost savings and efficiency, benefiting new users, but some find returns not immediate due to recent adoption.
As a Microsoft partner, we receive significant discounts, making the solution affordable for us.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.6
Microsoft Defender's support is reliable yet inconsistent in communication and timeliness, praised for skills but needs improvement.
Sentiment score
5.1
Microsoft Purview's support receives mixed reviews, with efficient Premier help but delays and limited team knowledge affecting satisfaction.
They are sometimes responsive, however, often issues cannot be reproduced on their end, making it challenging.
My team raised multiple support tickets for the product, and we were able to get responses from Microsoft support team.
Their response time and skill set are both good.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.5
Microsoft Defender is praised for its scalability and integration, efficiently managing vulnerabilities across various sectors and servers.
Sentiment score
7.5
Microsoft Purview DLP offers scalability and compliance in Microsoft environments, though integration challenges exist with non-Microsoft systems.
It is scalable; I evaluated the product and decided to use Defender on over 700 of our company servers.
The policy working and detection technology need enhancements.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.5
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is stable and reliable, though it has minor compatibility issues and can be resource-intensive.
Sentiment score
7.7
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is highly rated for stability and reliability, though some users desire improved internal connection consistency.
It is very resource-intensive, consuming a lot of memory and CPU.
There are compatibility issues occasionally arising with false positives when other security tools are not whitelisted in Microsoft Defender.
I would rate the overall stability as an eight.
Sometimes the solution is not stable when the internal connection is not reliable, so this aspect needs improvement.
 

Room For Improvement

Improve efficiency by reducing false positives and enhancing integration, stability, and AI capabilities while considering cost and resource demands.
Microsoft Purview's Data Loss Prevention needs improved labeling, integration, language support, incident handling, and Power Automate functionality.
The product is not stable; it often uses excessive memory and CPU, which makes it slow.
A vulnerability I patch within 15 minutes takes 24 additional hours for an update.
A potential improvement could be the introduction of a more advanced AI agent, possibly a large language model with better performance than the existing Microsoft Copilot.
Endpoint Data Loss Prevention needs to be improved as it is not up to expectations.
 

Setup Cost

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management has competitive pricing, requiring a license upgrade for additional features, often included in packages.
Microsoft Purview DLP pricing is competitive within E5, offering flexibility and value with bundling and potential group discounts.
For non-partners, however, the cost could be seen as higher, between seven to ten.
Overall, every organization wishes for cheaper options, but we look at the security side as well, so we are good for now.
The pricing is reasonable, and it's included in the whole Microsoft E5 bundle, so it's all-inclusive.
 

Valuable Features

Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management enhances security and efficiency through integration, accurate assessments, risk analysis, and management features.
Microsoft Purview DLP excels in compliance, auto-labeling, insights, and global management for effective multi-platform data protection.
The most valuable aspect is the kind of assessment results I get, and the recommendations provided in Microsoft products really help in taking care of the resources.
The integration with Sentinel has been one of the most valuable features for my organization.
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management provides regular advisories and recommendations that help improve our security posture.
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention usually performs well, except for endpoint Data Loss Prevention, which may need improvements.
 

Categories and Ranking

Microsoft Defender Vulnerab...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (14th), Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (17th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (5th)
Microsoft Purview Data Loss...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
16th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is 2.6%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Microsoft Security Suite
 

Featured Reviews

TakayukiUmehara - PeerSpot reviewer
Ease of management and integration supports operations, but has high resource consumption
A valuable feature is the ease of management and integration with Microsoft products. I appreciate that I can click on a server in the Defender Console, notice a risk, and retrieve all necessary information. Speed is a key feature as it is very quick to administer and allows for manual configuration from the portal.
Roby Skariah - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation has given us consistent analytics and improved quality of insights into user activity
One of the valuable features of Purview is the ability to create a legal hold on a user's account within the compliance portal. That's pretty useful when it comes to any litigation or if you want to redeem the content within a mailbox, OneDrive, or a generic public SharePoint site. If you want to retain the user's data until the case is resolved, you can use the legal hold feature. Also, it's important that Purview can connect to iOS, Mac, and Android devices. With smartphone involvement, so many applications can now be accessed through them and it is important to apply Purview across operating systems and platforms. Purview's natively integrated compliance across Azure Dynamics and Office 365 is also significant because within Microsoft 365 there are multiple applications. Irrespective of whether it's Dynamics or Azure, it's very important that it has native support. The data connectivity should be efficient enough to support and secure their own platform's data. In addition, with varying regulations in different industries and matters, Purview lets you create rules and conditions based on industry standards around the world. That is important. Our company is in pharmaceuticals and the rules and conditions are different from other industries. It is important to be able to keep track of all these regulations and have a tool that is flexible enough to create the regulatory rules and conditions we need. And when it comes to data loss protection, Purview has features that can recognize patterns and detect any sort of data loss, where the data is being transferred from its platform to a different one. The default settings that come with it are pretty nice for identifying data transfer or data loss across the platform. It also comes with a lot of training materials, with use cases and examples, to help educate users and make them familiar with the tool.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Microsoft Security Suite solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management?
I would rate the price as a three for us due to the partnership discounts. For non-partners, however, the cost could be seen as higher, between seven to ten.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management?
For our current usage, we do not have any complaints, but a potential improvement could be the introduction of a more advanced AI agent, possibly a large language model with better performance than...
What do you like most about Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
The most valuable features are identifying sensitive data and issuing alerts.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
It is quite expensive for us as the shift to E5 licenses represents a significant increase in cost. The cost works out to about $15 per user per month.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
Endpoint Data Loss Prevention needs to be improved as it is not up to expectations. Auto labeling and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) for devices need improvement as well.
 

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 Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs. Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.