We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator 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."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is agent communication."
"The DLP feature in McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is good."
"You have to have some experience, however, it's pretty simple to understand."
"The central manager policy means we have almost all client modules in one solution."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its general purpose of protecting our endpoints from infections, malicious files, and all those kinds of things. The fact that there are organized policies and policy inheritance. The general management."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The security is a key feature and the console is very user friendly."
"If you set it up right, it can really manage a very complex environment which require fine tuning where there are a lot of exceptions. That's what it caters to. It can just do those specifics in those exceptional situations, which is good."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"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."
"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."
"There needs to be support for Mac computers. Currently, McAfee does not work on iOS."
"We need to consolidate multiple features into one console. It would be beneficial to have all the important features on a single platform."
"McAfee should improve in terms of customer support and assigning a knowledgeable TAM to customers."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator needs to upgrade its technology since the solution's EDR function is not good compared to other vendors in the market."
"The impact of the agent on the endpoint's performance - the resources it takes. Additionally, the difficulties we experience with inheriting and breaking inheritance on the organization's structure breakdown for policy inheritance and then for rules inheritance. We are actually struggling with this."
"The detection aspect should be improved so that signatures are updated more quickly."
"McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator should improve its integration with other tools."
"There are some issues relating to the automation of reports. That's why I wanted the DLP reports. There are some problems in this area. Sometimes it does not work even though all the configuration words are right. There are also some problems with automatic updates."
Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews while McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is ranked 9th in Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) with 38 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator 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 McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator writes "Useful agent communication, reliable, but lacking support for microservices". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, CrowdStrike Falcon and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is most compared with Splunk SOAR, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Sentinel, Zscaler DLP and Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention. See our Digital Guardian vs. McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator report.
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.
