We performed a comparison between Microsoft Purview 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 product can block the uploads to cloud services."
"For Purview's natively integrated compliance across Azure, Dynamics 365, and Office 365, I would give it a 10 out of 10. It provides all the insights and information."
"The auto-labeling feature is definitely the most valuable feature. It goes in and labels the documents for you in different repositories. It covers the Outlook and Exchange repositories along with SharePoint and OneDrive. It is really helpful in those areas."
"We can use Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention to manage devices and site policies."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's responses are faster. Its installation is also reliable. The security score helps with the security part."
"I rate Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's stability a ten out of ten."
"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."
"It has helped our clients to reduce the time to action on insider threats because it can be integrated."
"Its impressive scalability allows the combination of multiple dictionaries and using them as one engine, resulting in narrower data loss gaps."
"The UI is easy to use."
"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."
"The initial setup is easy."
"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 product’s most valuable features are inbound and outbound scanning and API control."
"The policies are very easy to implement."
"There is a need for improvements, particularly in ensuring that file-based recognition is more reliable and comprehensive."
"Technical support is awful."
"The solution should provide better integration with other systems."
"The support is poor."
"The AI advancements can improve the false positives."
"The scalability, in terms of the portal, could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have faced difficulties in identifying the options."
"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."
"We have issues with the tool's maintenance and networking. It should be able to work in offline mode as well."
"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."
"The product must allow users to check logs for an entire year in the local console."
"The tool must provide IP-blocking features."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see RE2 Regex supported."
"There aren't really any missing features that I have witnessed."
"Price-wise, it is a costly product and it should be reduced."
More Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is ranked 1st in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 13 reviews while Zscaler DLP is ranked 4th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 15 reviews. Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.0, while Zscaler DLP is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention writes "Automation has given us consistent analytics and improved quality of insights into user activity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zscaler DLP writes "Provides a range of security measures to protect network traffic". Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Amazon Macie, Microsoft Intune and Digital Guardian, whereas Zscaler DLP is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Varonis Platform, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector and Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Data Loss Prevention. See our Microsoft Purview 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.