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

MANTA Flow vs Microsoft Purview Data Governance comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 2024

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

MANTA Flow
Ranking in Data Governance
37th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Purview Data Gove...
Ranking in Data Governance
1st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Data Governance category, the mindshare of MANTA Flow is 0.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Governance is 8.8%, down from 21.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Governance Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Purview Data Governance8.8%
MANTA Flow0.8%
Other90.4%
Data Governance
 

Featured Reviews

LeandroSodré - PeerSpot reviewer
Data Governance Analyst at Data Meaning, Inc.
Very Powerful, with cloud based scalability, and highly efficient for both business and technical teams
I had some difficulties, trying to use the direct link which is metadata through files that you can upload to MANTA Flow and you can just say from there where that data is going. But we just figured out that sometimes, depending on the level of the granularity that if you want to link the object, you can not. For example, if you want to link the objects just by schema, sometimes it does not work. So you need to scroll down and link each table. Sometimes the table level does not work, and you need to go deeper and go to link column to column. We figured out that this was a bug in MANTA Flow, and we talked to them and I think they were fixing it. But in our case, we just realized that if we could link the objects at the lowest level possible, it would work. I was trying to develop, right now, some kind of automation to compare the listed revision that I have in MANTA Flow with some other revision. And I would like to do it in an automatic way. I would like to have some kind of API where I could call this object and the revision that I want and the same object and another revision that I wanted to compare with. And I could not see it as some API in MANTA Flow, and we have this feature on the user interface. I think it would be very powerful because if you want to automate just warn the data owners the structures were updated by looking at the object level, and send an email to these owners to see if that change makes sense.
AS
Tech lead at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Automated data discovery has streamlined management while configuration remains complex
Compared to Big-ID, Microsoft Purview Data Governance looks complicated to me. I do not feel it has a good user-level UI. The interface feels a little complicated compared to Big-ID. I did not appreciate the configuration part. It felt complex, whereas when I went for a Big-ID demo, the interface looked better and was easier to understand for any user.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I believe it is very powerful. And for technicians, you can see the impact analysis, you can compare versions. So you can see some revisions against some of the oldest ones. You can compare and see which pipelines were updated between them. I think it is very helpful to both sides, the technical and business teams."
"Technical support works well, they resolve issues."
"The solution is stable. We have not found any fatal errors yet."
"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."
"The time to onboard is pretty short."
"The DLP part and the AI related ones are the most valuable features; I mostly appreciate their automated data discovery."
"The sensitivity labeling is the most valuable feature because it is the foundation for automating the encryption process and ensuring proper data handling across the organization."
"The features of Microsoft Purview Data Governance that I value most include communication compliance. It provides visibility into how people are using Copilot for Microsoft and gives insight into risks and sensitive conversations."
"The e-discovery search is useful."
"The best part is that I can create classifications per my requirements. I use it to classify multiple platforms like AWS, GCP, Azure, and different file sharing systems."
"The most valuable feature is the tracking activity and device onboarding."
 

Cons

"One area of improvement for MANTA Flow is to add as many new data sources as possible. We have found that maybe they can support 100, but not 101, unfortunately."
"I would like to have some kind of API where I could call this object and the revision that I want and the same object and another revision that I wanted to compare with. And I could not see it as some API in MANTA Flow, and we have this feature on the user interface."
"One area of improvement for MANTA Flow is to add as many new data sources as possible. We have found that maybe they can support 100, but not 101, unfortunately."
"I rate Microsoft support six out of 10. The standard support is acceptable, but sometimes it doesn't respond fast enough. Overall, it doesn't meet our expectations."
"While Microsoft Purview currently allows weekly scans for data sources, this limitation hinders the usefulness of the tool for frequently changing data."
"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."
"Purview's data connector platform for non-Microsoft data sources is good, but there is some functionality that hasn't been developed yet."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"The support could be better, particularly with consulting."
"In my experience, Purview hasn't come far enough yet to help us reduce the number of solutions that interact with each other."
"Although you can explore the data, that creates a great interest in data lineage or the data flow. How does it go from a source to a platform to a Power BI report, for example? It is possible, to some extent, to see that with Purview, but the lineage feature requires some manual work on the development side or more work from Microsoft to improve on it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As a service company, we don't care about the price because the customer is paying, but the customers consider MANTA to be reasonable."
"Currently, the licensing differs for the governance side compared to the risk and compliance side."
"Purview's price is pretty high when you factor in storage costs."
"Microsoft Purview is priced in the middle. It isn't the cheapest, but it isn't the most expensive. It's affordable compared to other public cloud services."
"The interesting part is how they are bundling the version into the E5 stack. If it was not for that inclusion, this would have been a difficult conversation for us, so kudos to Microsoft on that. Separating it out may become a problem for customer retention. It is definitely a good move on Microsoft's part to include it as part of any existing or any system upgrades for customers that were on E3."
"Aside from the complexity of the pricing model, the price itself is realistic. Features like AI components and automatic classification require additional licenses. Still, anyone can start using Purview with a basic E3 license if they're using Microsoft 365 and grow with additional licenses as needed. Overall, we're satisfied with the price."
"The pricing depends on the client's requirements and the number of applications."
"I would rate the cost of Microsoft Purview a six out of ten with ten being the most expensive."
"There is some competition out there, but the other solutions are quite expensive. They are enterprise tools that are a bit more mature but the license costs $100,000 for some of them. Purview is pay-per-use and a lot of companies are interested in that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Governance solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
33%
Insurance Company
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Purview?
Microsoft Purview Data Governance is quite affordable compared to other market solutions, which have high initial costs. It allows for a cost-effective start with negligible initial cost. However, ...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Purview?
The features in the actual data governance could be improved, and I think there is room for improvement in the product. We haven't used role-based access control in a complex way; it's somehow embe...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Azure Purview?
We are currently working with Microsoft Purview Data Governance and other Microsoft products. We are using Microsoft Purview Data Governance.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft Purview, MS Azure Purview
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about MANTA Flow vs. Microsoft Purview Data Governance and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.