We performed a comparison between IBM Data Governance and Microsoft Purview based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Collibra, Informatica and others in Data Governance."IBM Data Governance improved data analytics operations. During a company merger, we used IBM Data Governance to understand and bridge sample data between systems."
"It is pretty early, but the decision to go with this investment was largely driven by the simplification of our information security technology management stack. That is the primary objective. Once you simplify and you have a connected structure, it allows for faster adoption there. It also gives us additional capabilities as we go on using the technology that we are familiar with, and we do not have to depend on outside parties to come in and tell us how to do certain things."
"Instead of having to manually write down which tables and columns exist and then describe them, you can do that process in one go, by simply connecting to a source. That's a huge time-saver and a great benefit of Purview."
"Their data labeling or data classification is particularly valuable because we want to categorize all of our data into confidential, public, or internal."
"Microsoft Purview is scalable."
"The ability to classify data quickly and effortlessly is arguably Microsoft Purview's most valuable feature."
"The data lineage feature stands out. It tracks where the data comes from and any changes made."
"I use the tool in projects as a medium to provide information as reports to the stakeholders."
"The e-discovery search is useful."
"One area with room for improvement would be the ability to generate detailed quality reports. Some Python libraries provide quality scores and reports—having that capability within IBM Data Governance would be beneficial."
"Another area for improvement is in managing the business glossary terms. If they could provide the same type of method that we use to configure the scan rule sets, that would be helpful. Currently, there is no option like this, so we have to do it manually. Automatic detection would be great."
"Enhancing the tool's capability to connect to multiple sources would be valuable."
"Data quality has been a highly requested feature among customers."
"Purview's data connector platform for non-Microsoft data sources is good, but there is some functionality that hasn't been developed yet. There are some servers that it can't connect to yet, because they're still in a trial process."
"The current event-based retention management is very poor."
"I would like to have complete video documentation for training."
"There are some non-Microsoft file formats that are not supported."
"The custom data classification for the African region needs to be improved."
IBM Data Governance is ranked 29th in Data Governance with 1 review while Microsoft Purview is ranked 1st in Data Governance with 48 reviews. IBM Data Governance is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Purview is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Data Governance writes "Provides a single interface to monitor and navigate data quality metrics". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Purview writes "User friendly with good documentation but needs to cover more non-Microsoft use cases". IBM Data Governance is most compared with Collibra Governance and Informatica Axon, whereas Microsoft Purview is most compared with Collibra Governance, Alation Data Catalog, Varonis Platform, Informatica Axon and Microsoft Purview Information Protection.
See our list of best Data Governance vendors.
We monitor all Data Governance 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.
If I have to choose one, it's Purview. However, it's pretty new (just the beginning), has no complete capabilities and is not mature.
IBM is very complex and hard to implement.