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
2nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (14th)
OvalEdge
Ranking in Data Governance
28th
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 June 2026, in the Data Governance category, the mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Governance is 8.6%, 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 Governance8.6%
OvalEdge0.7%
Other90.7%
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

"It is designed to seamlessly connect to various data sources, which is particularly beneficial for our customers who primarily use Microsoft technologies."
"The availability of pre-designed policies tailored to specific geolocations and customer requirements is a valuable feature."
"We can prevent, block, or audit however we like."
"Data authentication enables us to classify documents based on whether they should be restricted for internal consumption or permitted for external sharing."
"It is very easy to learn the interface, and it is very user-friendly."
"The most significant value lies in its seamless integration into the Azure ecosystem, automating various processes and reducing operational burdens."
"Their data labeling or data classification is particularly valuable because we want to categorize all of our data into confidential, public, or internal."
"Purview's greatest benefit for us is data discovery."
"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

"Auto-tagging should be available at lower levels of licensing. Right now, a high level of licensing is needed for auto-tagging, and this feature should be made available at a lower license level."
"It could reduce pricing to encourage usage."
"There are differences when looking at an incident in the M365 portal versus Purview, and the main one is the advanced hunting. In the M365 portal, you can write KQL queries and fetch data. If that was available in Purview, it would be very good."
"There should be more clarity about the costing, particularly how the cost is calculated, especially when utilizing health reports and quality features."
"Overcoming certain control issues would significantly enhance our overall satisfaction."
"There are some non-Microsoft file formats that are not supported."
"Enhancing the tool's capability to connect to multiple sources would be valuable."
"Microsoft Purview's compliance processes for handling various Mac and iOS devices could be significantly improved."
"The lack of connectivity to mainframe systems and the complexity of integration are areas needing improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While Purview's standard pricing might not be accessible to most small businesses, we were fortunate to benefit from the educational pricing which made it a financially viable option for our needs."
"Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is not cheap."
"The price is reasonable because most of our clients already have an E3 license, which makes implementation easy."
"I would rate the cost of Microsoft Purview a six out of ten with ten being the most expensive."
"The price is reasonable considering its value."
"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."
"We pay $15,000 per end user for the E5 license."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Governance solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
18%
Construction Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise33
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: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.