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 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."
"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."
"The product can block the uploads to cloud services."
"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."
"Because everything is on Microsoft and we use Azure, integration with the product is easier. That's the most important thing when you use many Microsoft products. It's easier to integrate everything in one place."
"I rate Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's stability a ten out of ten."
"It has helped our clients to reduce the time to action on insider threats because it can be integrated."
"We can use Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention to manage devices and site policies."
"The initial setup is easy."
"You can close your data protection gaps with Zscaler. You can quickly find all the classified, sensitive data across the cloud."
"As a cloud-based service, it is very easily implemented."
"The most valuable aspect of Zscaler Cloud DLP is its automatic DLP feature."
"The product’s most valuable features are data discovery, activity control, and zero trust exchange."
"It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"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."
"The platform can be challenging to navigate and has the potential for improvement."
"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."
"There is a need for improvements, particularly in ensuring that file-based recognition is more reliable and comprehensive."
"The AI advancements can improve the false positives."
"Technical support is awful."
"I would like Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention to be on the source code or SQL databases. It is difficult to do classification and labeling when you have a third-party source code or a third-party Oracle database. It is seamless when it comes to Microsoft documents but is not so with third-party source codes. Microsoft needs to work on it a little bit more."
"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."
"There is no AIP for Linux systems. That's a setback. Another thing it's lacking is libraries to work with Python. It has libraries for C# and C++, for example, but not for Python and, these days, Python is very useful."
"There aren't really any missing features that I have witnessed."
"There could be a feature to view the VPN tunnel activities in terms of configuration."
"The product must allow users to check logs for an entire year in the local console."
"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."
"Zscaler Cloud DLP needs to improve its compatibility with other security tools."
"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 only issue with Zscaler Cloud DLP is that it only gives you DLP protection from web traffic, which is flowing out, while a full-blown DLP solution such as Forcepoint or Symantec gives you DLP coverage for multiple channels. Zscaler Cloud DLP doesn't give you coverage for email, fax, and USB channels, and this is the only challenge or room for improvement in the solution. It's just an extension on top of what you're buying on the proxy, so it's just an added layer, and it doesn't cover DLP on a very broad level. I'm unsure if Zcaler is in the business of competing with a full-blown DLP solution, and if there's a plan to expand the features of Zscaler Cloud DLP beyond the web channel because you'll have to deploy a full-blown agent for it. I'm unsure if this is on the cards because the solution is just an added layer that you get with your proxy. I've asked the Zcaler team whether there's a plan to go full DLP in the future, but I didn't get a positive response. There isn't any feature I'd like added to Zscaler Cloud DLP currently, because anything you could think of that should be in cloud or SaaS solutions is already there, except for machine learning, as it's the only functionality that seems to be lacking in the solution. Machine learning is an additional policy available in other DLP solutions in the market, but my team didn't find it in Zscaler Cloud DLP."
"They should work on a replica account. There could be alerts and replica files sent to the DLP team during data collection."
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, Microsoft Intune, Amazon Macie and Digital Guardian, whereas Zscaler DLP is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Varonis Platform, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector and Digital Guardian. 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.
