We performed a comparison between Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention and OpenText Data Protector 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 fingerprinting technology is the solution's most valuable feature. It's unique to Forcepoint."
"A very user-friendly predefining feature."
"The product is user-friendly."
"Forcepoint offers many policies that conform to global DLP best practices, including requirements specific to regions like the Middle East, Europe, etc. They have a policy database in their product. That feature is unique to Forcepoint. Their AI and fingerprinting are incredibly effective and robust. We have tested it multiple times. It always catches the correct data being leaked."
"The GUI is very intuitive. That is the way I would explain its ease of use. It is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is the OCR."
"I like that you can quickly create policies and enforce them in a matter of minutes."
"The built-in rules, templates, and content classifiers are among the most valuable features. Some of the built-in patterns are good places to get started with. Along with the phrases, they are helpful in putting together policies and fine-tuning our policies."
"Regarding scalability, it's unlimited with Data Protector. You can link multiple installations and let them work together. They can share backup devices. You have many possibilities with Data Protector. It's very proficient."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...The initial setup process for the solution is easy."
"Data Protector is very good at automation. From the time of the backup, verification, and copy to tape, it is very good. I don't need to touch it, it will do it by itself."
"What we find most valuable in Micro Focus Data Protector is that it provides Japanese data protection, for example, it protects information such as the full Japanese name, address, etc."
"This solution is quite stable because we have only three users."
"The feature that was most valuable was that we could restore one mailbox and we could do different backups for different databases."
"I haven't experienced any crashes while using the solution...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The deployment can be difficult."
"Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention can improve by having an uninstall option for the client or restart of a client agent can be controlled from the server. This feature is missing which is available with other solutions."
"The APIs for device integration are limited, so that could be improved."
"An area for improvement in Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is the complex UI and policy deployment. You have to find the policies, and then designing the policies is also tricky."
"The initial setup is a bit complex. You will need help from the peer support team in the configuration."
"I would like to see improvement in the reporting. We can only get one week's worth of data; we can't get more than that. Also, the reporting console is very slow, making it very frustrating to use."
"The ease of deployment wasn't as flexible as Digital Guardian."
"It would be better if we could easily integrate with other products. Suppose I want to integrate this DLP with some other CASB solutions or a firewall solution. In that case, it takes a considerable amount of time because Forcepoint DLP doesn't come with a legacy firewall or CASB solutions to integrate with it. We need to do it separately. It's not improvised for different sectors, and I need to look for other solutions. I'm investing a lot of time researching and implementing other solutions for other areas. That is one point where I can't feel satisfied with this Forcepoint DLP. The only problem we have faced is that it consumes most of the CPU whenever a Forcepoint DLP is deployed on an endpoint. This is when users feel some lag in their machine's performance or their Internet performance. That's when we uninstall and try to reinstall, or we'll give a cloud link to which it gets access. We use Forcepoint DLP for endpoint protection, not for email or cloud. For email and drive, we went with the Google DLP. Forcepoint DLP isn't as efficient on drive or chat, or email. For that, we have some specialized solutions, but it would be better to have a single console where you can control all these areas. It would be pretty easy for a consumer who is going to use this product. All in one shot, you can try to track it and enforce your policies on a single dashboard. That is one point currently lacking in Forcepoint, and I feel they need to work on it. In the next release, I would like to use this DLP across different solutions like network, firewall, email, or chat with a consolidated dashboard and with integration facilities with other solutions. Security should work as a whole. It shouldn't work individually in blocks. It does not serve our purpose. It should be integrated with multiple solutions. For that, it should have enough intelligence to work with other tools. I'm looking forward to seeing that kind of capability with Forcepoint."
"The graphical interface needs to be improved."
"If you compare the solution with the same specific features and enhancements on another solution, Data Protector is expensive. This is especially true when compared to, for example, Veeam."
"It would be ideal if they could improve their level of support."
"The GUI could be updated. The GUI hasn't changed since version 6. It's on version 10 now. The reporting could also be better. Also, while Data Protector is excellent for backing up physical hardware, it needs more features for backing up VM images because many environments use hypervisor."
"The solution is not intuitive enough. I think they should work on the user experience and the graphical interface. These can be a lot better."
"In SAP restoration, we faced issues with changing the SIDs and changing the path for every backup object. It is quite a lengthy process to do that."
"We have so many specific technological cracks in Micro Focus, but we are not getting the features, facilities, or coordination between the global delivery centers and the R&D team that we need to express our ideas."
"OpenText Data Protector is more difficult to use and configure than OpenText VIM. The user-friendliness of OpenText Data Protector has to be increased, and the complexity of the tool needs to be reduced."
More Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention Pricing and Cost Advice →
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is ranked 2nd in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 50 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 23rd in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is rated 8.0, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention writes "DLP great for encryptions; tech support is quite helpful". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Digital Guardian, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, CoSoSys Endpoint Protector and Varonis Platform, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Veritas Backup Exec. See our Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs. OpenText Data Protector 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.