No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cloudflare One
Sponsored
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
22nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Email Security (20th), Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (12th), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (12th), Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) Protection (8th), Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions (13th), Access Management (12th), Bot Management (3rd), ZTNA as a Service (8th), ZTNA (4th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (9th), Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) (2nd)
Forcepoint Data Loss Preven...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Purview Data Loss...
Ranking in Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Data Loss Prevention (DLP) category, the mindshare of Cloudflare One is 2.0%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is 4.6%, down from 8.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is 6.1%, down from 12.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention6.1%
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention4.6%
Cloudflare One2.0%
Other87.3%
Data Loss Prevention (DLP)
 

Featured Reviews

CV
Network Architect at IP Dimension
Cloud security has improved remote access and has reduced costs for smaller client sites
I have used Cloudflare One's Identity-Aware Proxy, and it is quite straightforward from what I have seen so far. The app registration on the Azure side integrates fully into Cloudflare, and I am very satisfied with that part because it is easy to set up. The integration of Cloudflare One's Secure Web Gateway and Zero Trust Network Access works without any issues. That part is pretty automatic, and if you complete the rest of the setup, it comes together by itself with no issues from my side. What makes it nice is that we can actually start replacing on-site firewalls at this stage for the smaller clients because it does not matter if they go to a coffee shop or work from home; they are still secured by the same connection. The hops get shorter and you get better latency. We have done testing to see if it is better. One thing that we did notice with our proof of concept with our current client is that they have people connecting from the UK. When they used their previous VPN solution, uploading CAD drawings and other files to the server took a long time. They mentioned that it is much quicker on Cloudflare One's solution. I definitely believe that is part of the improved performance, and I am satisfied with that as well. What is nice about Cloudflare One is that it makes the setup easier and also easier to train technicians to maintain it. Compared to legacy systems, we do not need to get fancy firewalls in place that are costly. That is definitely also a cost-saver with Cloudflare One.
Madhukar Pandey - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager, Risk at LTFS
Quarantine workflows have shifted risk to business and provide strong PII protection across channels
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention can be improved because the options nowadays involve the use of AI. The approach of Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is still very traditional, where I have to create the policy for each and everything. The AI component is missing in Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, where based on user behavior analytics, it could give us suggestions. This type of improvement is needed in Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention. Additionally, the hardware costing goes up when it comes to Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention because it requires large resources in the implementation part. Not regarding the user interface, but nowadays other DLP solutions have come up with the CASB part and the SaaS platform they are providing. Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is still lagging there, and I have to rely on the on-premises setups. The management part has been difficult as I have to patch the servers, restart them, and regularly take backups. These are a few tedious things that I have to do while managing Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention. This part also needs to be improved in Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention.
Rohit Jaiswar - PeerSpot reviewer
Soc Anaylst at Softcell Technologies Limited
Integrated controls have reduced insider risk and now protect sensitive data across our workforce
One standout feature about Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is the tight integration with Insider Risk Management and Defender XDR, as it gives much better context during investigations instead of treating DLP as an isolated alerting tool. We also use endpoint DLP heavily to control USB, copy, print, clipboard, and browser upload activity, which has been very effective for remote workforce security. The best features Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention offers include real-time policy enforcement, endpoint DLP, and deep integration with Microsoft 365 plus Defender XDR. We also heavily rely on sensitive information type detection, adaptive policy tips, and insider risk integration to investigate suspicious user behavior with proper context. Another standout feature is the ability to control USB copy, browser uploads, print clipboards, and cloud sharing actions directly from endpoint policies. The integration with Microsoft Defender 365 and Defender XDR helps our team in day-to-day operations because DLP alerts are automatically correlated with endpoint identity, email, and user activity telemetry, which helps the SOC investigate incidents much faster from a single workflow. The sensitive information type detection makes a difference compared to other tools we have used because it is more effective than many legacy DLP tools. It understands context, exact data patterns, document labeling, and Microsoft 365 native content, reducing false positives while improving detection accuracy. Another strong feature of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is auto-labeling and policy inheritance with Microsoft's Information Protection, which helps maintain protection even after files are shared or moved across workloads. We also value the user coaching or policy tip capability because it educates users in real time instead of only blocking actions, which reduces repeated DLP violations significantly.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution has different options that can be used to differentiate DDoS attacks."
"Cloudflare Access is a stable solution."
"Cloudflare Access is part of the Zero Trust philosophy."
"It is a stable solution."
"The tool also offers good scalability, and the dashboard, along with real-time analytics, is very good."
"Cloudflare DDoS is better than its competitors for its security, deployment, and scalability."
"The blocking feature is very good."
"The capabilities of the software are strong enough for me to do what it's supposed to do. For me, we don't need to do a lot of configuration on our site. We just enable it and monitor it."
"Regardless of the size of your company, this solution can be scaled accurately."
"The integration is great."
"Scalability-wise, I rate this solution a nine out of ten."
"I prefer Forcepoint for data discovery and data loss prevention."
"We have some financial stuff which is critical for us and don't want to lose that data."
"Forcepoint's data visibility is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is easy to manage."
"The product is user-friendly."
"We can use Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention to manage devices and site policies."
"Because everything is on Microsoft and we use Azure, integration with the product is easier. That's the most important thing when you use many Microsoft products. It's easier to integrate everything in one place."
"Microsoft Purview has helped improve our organization's ability to discover sensitive data significantly as we use eDiscovery Purview, which is incredibly helpful."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention has absolutely helped improve my organization's ability to manage data because we use M365 for the majority of our knowledge worker storage, and that's where people's data lives."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention's responses are faster. Its installation is also reliable. The security score helps with the security part."
"The auto-labeling feature is definitely the most valuable feature, as it goes in and labels the documents for you in different repositories, covering the Outlook and Exchange repositories along with SharePoint and OneDrive, which is really helpful in those areas."
"We have not seen any sensitive files leave via email, which represents a significant improvement."
"The most valuable features are identifying sensitive data and issuing alerts."
 

Cons

"The free plan has limitations. For example, I can only set up three rules, and the application firewall is unavailable."
"I would like them to include a VPN feature to provide a secure connection to the data center."
"The onboarding process can be improved a little bit."
"Our customers no longer use Cloudflare because its service is subpar."
"Cloudflare One is not very powerful, but for what we require, it is basic and sufficient."
"From a logging perspective, it is still a bit difficult to see exactly what users are being blocked with the current views."
"The software has automated alerts, but the automated alerts are not available in the mobile app."
"They don't have a person to provide support for customers using the solution under their free plan."
"The APIs for device integration are limited, so that could be improved."
"Everything can be improved and maybe there is a way to improve the user experience through the interface."
"They need to improve their reporting feature as well as the incident response."
"It does not serve our purpose."
"The policy update size and agent size could be improved. We would also like to have a proper solution for Linux OS which Forcepoint does not offer."
"I would recommend aligning OCR with endpoints. This is a highly demanded technology globally, especially for endpoints. Forcepoint should focus on improving this aspect to draw more users from Symantec's side."
"The Database needs to be improved and fine-tuning is required on this product."
"It should integrate better with email."
"All the security operations are better defined in Forcepoint, while in Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, you will have to use a specific workflow and then an application to release blocked emails."
"Technical support seriously needs work. They are not helpful at all."
"The scalability, in terms of the portal, could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have faced difficulties in identifying the options."
"I would say the improvement of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention could be in the propagation of policies, as if you create a policy, it may take up to 48 hours to propagate to devices, and this might take a little bit longer than ideal."
"A major improvement is required in the solution's incident handling and alerting."
"A site can have different containers where you store data. We have always wanted to apply compliance, labels, and policies at the container level, rather than to an outer shell or at the site level. That is something we have been looking forward to and I believe Microsoft is already planning something like that."
"The solution should provide better integration with other systems."
"I would assess the stability and reliability of Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention as being flaky at times, where eDiscovery sometimes takes forever or doesn't bring the results we expect."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"My company has to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs attached to the solution. There are no hidden charges apart from the licensing costs of the solution."
"The solution's pricing lacks transparency."
"The price tag is no longer $200,000, but rather $300,000 to $400,000. It's twice."
"The solution is not that expensive."
"Cloudflare Zero Trust Platform's pricing is good."
"The prices are slightly expensive."
"The pricing is somewhere in the middle. I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten."
"The pricing of the solution is cheap. The licensing cost is also very low. I rate the cost and pricing a three out of ten."
"I can't comment on the cost, as a different department handles that."
"The solution is expensive."
"Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is costlier than other brands, but not all. Of the solutions, I have used Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is more costly."
"Forcepoint has been very cost-effective because they gave us a good deal while procuring the DLP solution."
"Forcepoint offers a more cost-effective solution because everything, including OCR, is included in one package, unlike Symantec, where it is an add-on with an additional cost."
"The price of the solution is expensive."
"They are flexible regarding the pricing and they have a good model for an OEM data classification tool... Forcepoint has been one of the most competitively priced products over the last few years."
"There is an annual subscription model and the amount depends on the type of implementation."
"If one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the price as one out of ten."
"It is a part of our Microsoft licensing. We pay for a yearly renewal. Its price is reasonable for the size of the organization we are. It is fairly competitive, and you get what you pay for. We have an E5 license, and a part of understanding the E5 license is to see what all you get with it. If you really look at it from that standpoint, you get a lot of value. You have Defender and all its security features in there as well. Their licensing is fairly flexible. They have different programs. We've seen ones where you could pay for up to three to five years in advance. There is also a monthly pay-as-you-go type of deal, but we're doing a yearly renewal and fixing the budget."
"Though I am not a specialist, the tool is quite expensive."
"It's a little bit pricey compared to competitors, but it's not too high."
"We are using the E3 license for Microsoft 365 with the E5 compliance license add-on."
"The product has the best price-to-performance ratio."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is part of a bundle and is not sold as a standalone product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
19%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business33
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise29
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Cloudflare Zero Trust Platform?
In my opinion, Cloudflare One can be improved mainly through compatibility, as the integration should be much simpler...
What is your primary use case for Cloudflare Zero Trust Platform?
Cloudflare One's primary use case for my organization is to protect servers and to provide remote access with the VPN...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention?
Need to bare server cost if you are going for on prem setup. License cost is negotiable.
What needs improvement with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention?
Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention can be improved because the options nowadays involve the use of AI. The approach of F...
What is your primary use case for Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention?
My main use case for Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is that I have used it for all three channels: the endpoint, web...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
The pricing for Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention was manageable for us because we already had Microsoft 365 and...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention can be improved as the endpoint DLP policy tuning can be complex in large envi...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention?
Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is used for monitoring and preventing sensitive data exfiltration across Excha...
 

Also Known As

Cloudflare Area 1 Email Security, Cloudflare Bot Management, Cloudflare Gateway, Cloudflare Zero Trust Platform, Cloudflare DDoS, Cloudflare SASE & SSE Platform
Forcepoint DLP, Forcepoint Data Security Suite, Websense Data Security Suite
Microsoft Endpoint Data Loss Prevention, MS Endpoint DLP, Microsoft Endpoint DLP
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

23andMe
Alphawest, Betsson, Cellcom Israel Ltd., Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, Confartigianato Vicenza, EverBank, Finansbank, iGATE, Landa Digital Printing, Northern California Bank, Reliance Capital, Remosa, Toyota, Scavolini, Zim Integrated Shipping Services
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs. Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.