We performed a comparison between Microsoft Purview and SAS Data Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Collibra, Informatica and others in Data Governance."Purview helps mitigate risk and allows us to govern the information being shared among apps and devices."
"Microsoft Purview's primary benefit lies in safeguarding sensitive and confidential data, thereby mitigating the risk of internal data exfiltration."
"The ability to classify data quickly and effortlessly is arguably Microsoft Purview's most valuable feature."
"I think Purview does as good a job...I'll say that it is as stable as the data governance maturity that exists within an organization. It can't be more stable than that."
"I use the tool in projects as a medium to provide information as reports to the stakeholders."
"I like Purview's data discovery features. It automatically scans and identifies all the fields. In the last project, the customer required us to have some of the codes we specified in this, and we had to structure the codes in a specific way. We can define the structure."
"Purview helped us automate and control our data without having to rely on people to manually tag documents with specific retention periods."
"It gives you the opportunity to know your data and apply policies around it. If those policies are flouted, you can always track what's happening. You have options such as alerting the person who is committing that action, or you can take automatic action by blocking, for example, an email that is been sent externally. It's very useful."
"This is an established product with powerful data analysis and varied options for user entry points."
"The tool is reliable, quick, and powerful."
"In terms of which features I have found most valuable, I would say the importing and exporting features. Additionally, the data sorting, categorizing and summarizing features, especially how it can summarize based on categories. These are the key features."
"I am impressed with the tool's ability to customize."
"If you compare it to SQL, the memory and development times are very quick."
"The solution is very stable. We haven't faced any issues with glitches or bugs. We haven't had any crashes."
"Its robustness is valuable. It is a full-fledged suite. We have a data warehouse model, and there are also a lot of data quality management tools. The repository and all other tools are there. So, it is a full package in terms of reporting tools."
"The technical support is excellent."
"If we could have a view something like we have in CrowdStrike—which is, I believe, the biggest competitor to Microsoft when it comes to security—a node nodal view, which we also have in Defender, that would make it a more complete, one-stop solution. That would save a lot of time for the admins and the engineers."
"I lose a little bit of that control when we're talking about third-party connectors. Compliance-wise, I would like to see more ability to audit from a user perspective, where I could extrapolate what the user was thinking or trying to do."
"I have some concerns about the separation of roles in Purview from the Microsoft tenant, as well as how they interact with the security portal and endpoint manager."
"I'd like to see them improve the training for implementing this type of solution."
"Enhancing the tool's capability to connect to multiple sources would be valuable."
"Non-Microsoft use cases are not very high. It's limited for now."
"We've had a few issues with the scanner. It runs perfectly one day, and on another day, it will run the whole night. It's probably related to the rules. If I set some compliance rules and apply the rules to any column, I can't delete it. I have to disable it and reactivate it."
"The overall cost of deploying this solution could be better. It seems that middle and small-sized organizations are not completely happy with deploying this solution in terms of the cost. It would be good if they concentrate on the cost part."
"We implemented it a while ago, and we are trying to improve the data delivery performance. We are looking into how to get faster and automated reporting. We would need better designs and workflows."
"We find we often have to go back and re-train users when there are changes made to the solution because the changes are not intuitive."
"One problem is accessing the data using a solution other than SAS. The SAS data, which we create in the SAS, cannot be accessed by other tools. We can't open those data in other applications. So we need to have that application in place."
"With SAS Data Management, you have to purchase an external driver, configure all of the tables for all of the data that you will extract from Salesforce. It's not a straightforward process."
"The solution is quite expensive and hard to install/configure."
"The solution could use better documentation."
"I would like the tool to include the ability to automate the modifications of the integrations."
"Very little needs to improve but perhaps a nicer graphic interface and remaining competetive in the growing field of data analytics."
Microsoft Purview is ranked 1st in Data Governance with 48 reviews while SAS Data Management is ranked 27th in Data Governance with 15 reviews. Microsoft Purview is rated 7.6, while SAS Data Management is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Purview writes "User friendly with good documentation but needs to cover more non-Microsoft use cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAS Data Management writes "A scalable solution with customer support that is responsive and diligent". Microsoft Purview is most compared with Collibra Governance, Alation Data Catalog, Varonis Platform, Informatica Axon and Microsoft Intune, whereas SAS Data Management is most compared with Informatica PowerCenter, Tungsten RPA, IBM InfoSphere DataStage, Palantir Foundry and SSIS.
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.
