We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian 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."In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"It has been scalable."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"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."
"As a cloud-based service, it is very easily implemented."
"Zscaler Cloud DLP provides you with basic DLP features that you get out of the box such as keywords, regular expressions, and data identifiers, for example, your social security numbers, and credit card numbers, with everything built into the product, so you can directly use those features within the policies. You don't need to create it from scratch, and to me, this is the biggest benefit of Zscaler Cloud DLP. You have a lot of templates to choose from in the solution, rather than having to create templates from scratch or reinvent templates."
"Its impressive scalability allows the combination of multiple dictionaries and using them as one engine, resulting in narrower data loss gaps."
"The policies are very easy to implement."
"It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The product’s most valuable features are inbound and outbound scanning and API control."
"The initial setup is easy."
"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."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"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."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"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."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"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."
"Zscaler Cloud DLP needs to improve its compatibility with other security tools."
"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."
"There could be additional ways to define proximity. Additionally, they should provide some exclusion options for specific policies and an ability to control the DLP engine."
"The product must allow users to check logs for an entire year in the local console."
"They should work on a replica account. There could be alerts and replica files sent to the DLP team during data collection."
"The tool must provide IP-blocking features."
"The customers would benefit from more robust documentation and conversations around configurations, as it is slightly complex."
"There aren't really any missing features that I have witnessed."
Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews while Zscaler DLP is ranked 4th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 15 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Zscaler DLP is rated 8.6. 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 Zscaler DLP writes "Provides a range of security measures to protect network traffic". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Safetica ONE, whereas Zscaler DLP is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Varonis Platform and Palo Alto Networks Enterprise Data Loss Prevention. See our Digital Guardian 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.