We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and Digital Guardian based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison results: Based on the parameters we compared, Forcepoint DLP comes out ahead of Digital Guardian. While the two solutions feature valuable endpoint detection and management tools, Digital Guardian’s support team, as well as its licensing cost leave room for improvement.
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"It has been scalable."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"Some good features are basically its UAV Analytics engine. And even fingerprinting is really good in Forcepoint."
"One of the most valuable features is being able to see file movement, where files are going. Every week we review the files. It can identify software codes, so we code files and we know where they're going and who's doing what. It gives us visibility."
"The solution offers very good sensitive data protection."
"The scalability is fantastic. One of the things that I like about Forcepoint is that I can customize the solution to suit my objectives."
"The fingerprinting technology is the solution's most valuable feature. It's unique to Forcepoint."
"I like that you can quickly create policies and enforce them in a matter of minutes."
"The incident management and fingerprinting have been the most valuable features."
"The solution is easy to manage."
"It would be helpful if there was an on-premise version of the solution for companies that cannot use the cloud, such as government sectors."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"There are a lot of issues with the current version of the Endpoint agent. It's not stable, it's resource-consuming, and there are some performance issues. If they could improve the stability of the agent it would be great."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"It would be better if we could easily integrate with other products. Suppose I want to integrate this DLP with some other CASB solutions or a firewall solution. In that case, it takes a considerable amount of time because Forcepoint DLP doesn't come with a legacy firewall or CASB solutions to integrate with it. We need to do it separately. It's not improvised for different sectors, and I need to look for other solutions. I'm investing a lot of time researching and implementing other solutions for other areas. That is one point where I can't feel satisfied with this Forcepoint DLP. The only problem we have faced is that it consumes most of the CPU whenever a Forcepoint DLP is deployed on an endpoint. This is when users feel some lag in their machine's performance or their Internet performance. That's when we uninstall and try to reinstall, or we'll give a cloud link to which it gets access. We use Forcepoint DLP for endpoint protection, not for email or cloud. For email and drive, we went with the Google DLP. Forcepoint DLP isn't as efficient on drive or chat, or email. For that, we have some specialized solutions, but it would be better to have a single console where you can control all these areas. It would be pretty easy for a consumer who is going to use this product. All in one shot, you can try to track it and enforce your policies on a single dashboard. That is one point currently lacking in Forcepoint, and I feel they need to work on it. In the next release, I would like to use this DLP across different solutions like network, firewall, email, or chat with a consolidated dashboard and with integration facilities with other solutions. Security should work as a whole. It shouldn't work individually in blocks. It does not serve our purpose. It should be integrated with multiple solutions. For that, it should have enough intelligence to work with other tools. I'm looking forward to seeing that kind of capability with Forcepoint."
"The price could be reduced to be more cost, effective."
"I'd like the data classification to be better."
"The deployment can be difficult."
"There is no support for the Bangla (Bengali) language, so we cannot use the Forcepoint technology for Bangla documents."
"You have to monitor the solution all the time."
"The APIs for device integration are limited, so that could be improved."
"The solution lacks sufficient customization."
More Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews while Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is ranked 2nd in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 52 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Digital Guardian writes "Great data classification and data discover with built-in endpoint detection and response". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention writes "DLP great for encryptions; tech support is quite helpful". Digital Guardian is most compared with Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Faronics Deep Freeze, whereas Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector, Zscaler DLP and Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Data Loss Prevention. See our Digital Guardian vs. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention 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.
