We performed a comparison between Symantec DLP 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, Symantec DLP comes out ahead of Digital Guardian. While both solutions offer valuable endpoint security and data analysis, Digital Guardian’s lack of support and high price leaves room for improvement.
"We have been able to monitor access to files from each of our workstations."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"The technical support is really terrific."
"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."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"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."
"The Network Monitor component is the most advanced on the market. Combined with the other Network DLP components."
"Symantec Data Loss Prevention is the number one product in its field. It does its job well and it has all the necessary features. It is definitely better than any other solution on the market."
"Symantec DLP has many servers, and the solution is very powerful because you can use it in ports, endpoints, networks, and email servers to prevent the leakage of emails. DLP can be integrated with Symantec encryption."
"One of the most valuable features is that you can check attachments."
"It has good options for policy findings. You can do granular policy enhancements with multiple options. And the SMB blocking is a very good feature."
"We work in the banking field. We deploy data loss prevention. Our branch protects our clients' data, credit card numbers, account numbers, and other confidential and sensitive data."
"An excellent solution for data classification."
"Users like the product because of its simplicity and the rate of detection."
"Technical support could be better."
"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 initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"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."
"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."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"Different departments should manage administration, reporting, normalization and incident management."
"In a majority of cases, most of the companies are using DLP for endpoint sessions, where you have a user that might be communicating information outside of the company. However, they forget there are actual interfaces that can directly communicate with either the database or other files within the data center that uses end-to-end encryption. In those cases, you might need things like your DLP to be able to monitor and block some of that. The solution needs to catch information communicated through the data center on the server-side."
"Symantec could be better with infrastructure."
"The product must improve its interface."
"This product is very powerful but it is very complex, so making it simpler to use would be an improvement."
"There should be more information about the features of the solution and what they do. This way we would be able to use all the features that are available."
"The product's pricing and support services need improvement."
"The product's technical support services need improvement."
More Symantec Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews while Symantec Data Loss Prevention is ranked 3rd in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 53 reviews. Digital Guardian is rated 7.4, while Symantec 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 Symantec Data Loss Prevention writes "Consitent, accurate, and simple". Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon and Faronics Deep Freeze, whereas Symantec Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector, Zscaler DLP and Trend Micro Integrated Data Loss Prevention. See our Digital Guardian vs. Symantec 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.
