We performed a comparison between Digital Guardian and NetWitness Platform 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."There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has been scalable."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"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."
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"The most valuable features are its ingestion of logs and raising of alerts based on those logs."
"It's quite economical compared to other solutions in the market."
"The newer 11.5 version that my team is using has found it to have good mapping."
"Their technical support responds quickly and are knowledgable."
"Setting up NetWitness is straightforward. There are multiple connectors, including standard and specialized connectors. One purpose of the connectors is the enhanced capability integrate the custom applications. NetWitness comes with E6 appliances and application images that we use for the initial configurations and for the OS stack information. From there, you can consider the correlation rules, integrate the different log sources, and easily create correlation rules and backlog reports."
"It gives the ability to investigate into network traffic in the Net and the organization what we couldn't do before."
"Offers a good wireless feature."
"The most valuable features are the packet inspection and the automated incident response."
"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."
"Technical support could be better."
"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."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"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."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"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."
"Nowadays, their support is a little subpar compared to other solutions. I rate RSA support six out of 10."
"The tool's integration capability isn't so great."
"The threat detection capability and centralizing and upgrading capability need to be improved. The threat alert capability needs to be improved as well because there is some lag time at present. They need to work on their database search too."
"The log system is a bit complex and has room for improvement."
"It is not so easy to customize this product."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Sometimes, it gives me static when integrating Windows-based systems. It should produce a precise log of sorts as to where the problem is. For example, a few days ago because of the McAfee application firewall, I couldn't get access to the particular Windows machine. So, my team and I had to figure out by ourselves that there was a virus responsible for the obstacle. This solution should trigger a meaningful log or message indicating the reason the user or implementer can't get into the machine."
"They should implement algorithms to digest that data and produce additional, more advanced reporting, alerting and support of internal security teams."
Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews while NetWitness Platform is ranked 20th in Log Management with 36 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while NetWitness Platform is rated 7.4. 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 NetWitness Platform writes "Can find out if there is lateral movement, but integration and workflow need improvement". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon, whereas NetWitness Platform is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, RSA enVision, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Sentinel and Cisco Secure Network Analytics. See our Digital Guardian vs. NetWitness Platform 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.