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

Microsoft Purview Data Governance vs OvalEdge comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

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)
OvalEdge
Ranking in Data Governance
26th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Data Governance category, the mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Governance is 8.8%, down from 21.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OvalEdge is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Governance Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Purview Data Governance8.8%
OvalEdge0.7%
Other90.5%
Data Governance
 

Featured Reviews

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.
AzhagarasanAnnadorai - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder at Kaizentric Technologies Private Limited
Enables comprehensive data governance with role-based access and directory integration
The UI is straightforward for technical users with organized features under different modules like data catalog and business glossary. The role-based access control and integration with the directory system allow strict governance and limited user access. The APIs are comprehensive, enabling integration with other systems even for creating virtual data catalogs.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The time to onboard is pretty short."
"The cataloging tool is definitely the most valuable... It tells you about all the data you have in your tables, which helps people understand our data. We now know what data we have."
"It is critical that Purview delivers data protection across multi-cloud and multi-platform environments. That is the number one reason that people are adopting hybrid and best-of-the-breed approaches. Especially in banking, it is critical because people want to protect, govern, and secure their data. This is one of the first conversations that happens with security and the architecture group on the client side."
"It is very easy to learn the interface, and it is very user-friendly."
"Data segregation is the most valuable feature."
"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 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 most valuable aspect of Purview is its PowerShell connectivity, enabling automation."
"The UI is straightforward for technical users with organized features under different modules like data catalog and business glossary."
"Over time, OvalEdge has improved significantly."
 

Cons

"It is lacking a bit because I've opened some tickets, and it's taken months to resolve, or I've never even had them resolved."
"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."
"There is room for improvement when it comes to Purview's data connector platform in supporting ingestion from non-Microsoft data sources."
"Support should be improved in the form of good documentation and video lessons where a person can check things out. There is a community, but it takes a lot of time if we want to get an answer to a question."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"Some of the menu headings may not be easy to understand for some people."
"The custom data classification for the African region needs to be improved."
"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."
"The lack of connectivity to mainframe systems and the complexity of integration are areas needing improvement."
"The lack of connectivity to mainframe systems and the complexity of integration are areas needing improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Microsoft Purview is expensive."
"The solution is extremely affordable for the K-12 space."
"Microsoft Purview is the best option I have encountered when it comes to price. Maybe some of my information is outdated, but Microsoft offered it so that you could use it almost without paying."
"Purview is included in our Microsoft E5 licensing."
"The price is reasonable considering its value."
"The price is reasonable because most of our clients already have an E3 license, which makes implementation easy."
"The pricing is decent. It is neither too low nor too high. Given its capabilities, the pricing is justified."
"The pricing is reasonable because it's part of the 365 E3 or E5 license you buy."
Information not available
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
15%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for OvalEdge?
The pricing is affordable compared to other tools, and we opted for 500 user license.
What needs improvement with OvalEdge?
The lack of connectivity to mainframe systems and the complexity of integration with legacy data systems are areas needing improvement. Advanced jobs require extra training and fine-tuning, making ...
What is your primary use case for OvalEdge?
GDPR compliance and enabling users to understand the transformation of data from one database to another. It is used mainly as a data catalog for data discovery, allowing users to understand the da...
 

Also Known As

Microsoft Purview, MS Azure Purview
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Beaumont CHKD, UpWork, Pon, Rakuten, Verbund, Globe, Naranja
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Purview Data Governance vs. OvalEdge and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.