Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs OpenText Data Protector comparison

"The Forcepoint tool is well developed. It is ranked in many evaluations at the top when it comes to enterprise DLP solutions. It has good artificial intelligence that enables our customers to focus on specific incidents, instead of having a complicated list of uncategorized incidents."

"We receive a lot of insights from this product."

"Forcepoint DLP's most valuable feature is that it provides complete end-to-end security."

"Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is a user-friendly product, particularly regarding upgrades."

"Has multiple modules and is good with integration."

"Forcepoint's data visibility is the most valuable feature."

"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."

"The product is user-friendly."

"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."

"What I like the most about this solution is that I can change and access the Oracle backup file."

"It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product."

"The command-line interface is user-friendly and well documented in the reference guide."

"The initial setup was relatively easy."

"The solution is easy to use."

"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."

"The file system backup (by far, the most used) is the most valuable feature."

"Their discovery or the way they discover the data at risk can also be improved. There are many database servers that are not supported by Forcepoint."

"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 main area of concern is the tool's technical support."

"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."

"They can improve a bit in the OCR category. The OCR deployment could be simplified. Right now, you have to set up a separate server to manage all the data going through the network, especially the images. Forcepoint could better integrate the OCR component with central management."

"Everything takes a long time, as it does in every software company, especially since COVID. That is something I notice with every product I use."

"Overall, Forcepoint support is not very good."

"My opinion is that the dashboard could be improved and made more user-friendly. They do not enable a wide range of proper inquiries and we need to identify much of what we need on our own, like incident severity."

"I'm uncertain if it supports virtual machine backup and restoration. If they could enhance this aspect, they could gain more support from end users."

"The new backup systems are using new mechanisms for the recovery phases; for example, VM, recovery and testing the backup before recovering it. These features are not available in Data Protector."

"The downside of the flexibility on offer is if you over-configure it, it may fail to function as some configurations may not match."

"We faced some certification issues after we upgraded to version 10.2."

"Many of our users complain about the GUI. You still need to rely on the command line interface. Because it originated as a Unix system, Data Protector is still a command line-driven solution, which makes it seem rather dated compared to systems that are built around a GUI from day one. It doesn't affect the functionality, but some people don't find it user-friendly."

"The graphical interface needs to be improved."

"I would like to see a better user interface in the next release."

"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."

"I can't comment on the cost, as a different department handles that."

"The pricing for Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention is more expensive than Symantec, but it's negotiable. It depends on how well you negotiate. The solution is worth the money, though, based on the services and facilities it provides to my company."

"There is an annual subscription model and the amount depends on the type of implementation."

"The solution is expensive."

"The licensing of Forcepoint is quite straightforward. It's based on the number of users. The support fees are a separate cost."

"Forcepoint has been very cost-effective because they gave us a good deal while procuring the DLP solution."

"This solution is quite expensive."

"They have to look at a different pricing structure for small to medium-sized enterprises because the cost is too high."

"They have two types of licensing, one is for storage capacity and the other is client licensing. The capacity licensing here is a bit expensive."

"The pricing is neither too expensive nor very cheap."

"The licensing cost is too high."

"Pricing for Micro Focus Data Protector is reasonable."

"Our licensing is on a capacity basis."

"Pricing/licensing is Data Protector's single best offering. In its most basic environment, the only license required is for whatever target device is required."

"In Data Protector, if you need extra features, you need to buy the agents for these features. Some of the features are Terabytes, some of them are agents. There's some complexity in the pricing and licensing."

"It is fast, reliable, and its licensing policy is great."