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, ongoing costs, especially when utilizing advanced functionalities like health and quality reports in Microsoft Purview Data Governance, require more clarity.

The auto-tagging feature should be available at a lower licensing level.

The experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing was smooth, as most Purview functionalities were included in the e5 licenses we migrated to for other reasons.

Licensing is frustrating due to multiple modules and licenses. The feature might be available in the console, but it won't work without the proper license, creating confusion.

It is cheap or free since we have an EFI license. It is free for the EFI user.

Microsoft Purview is a subscription-based service, so we need either an E3 or E5 license to use it. The specific features we have access to within Purview depend on which of these licenses we have.

Currently, the licensing differs for the governance side compared to the risk and compliance side. On the governance side, the charges are based on the usage of Purview, including the data map, data catalog, and scanning and classification jobs. However, on the risk and compliance side, it's based on licensing, specifically the E5 license, to access the risk and security compliance features. As of now, the pricing structures remain separate. Improvements in providing clearer information on any pricing changes as these three solutions are unified would be beneficial.

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 is expensive.

The solution is extremely affordable for the K-12 space.

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. Is the cost good or bad? Any cost that is incurred is really about the value. Do we want to put a price on a breach? I hope not. That is where the cost comes in. The value comes in right there. You get what you pay for most of the time, and that is just the reality in life. You can go out and buy six cheap items that do not work well together or you can invest with Microsoft in their stack, which allows us to keep everything working, as we would expect it to work, seamlessly and with as little ongoing investment. We have a very large partnership with Microsoft, and so from a cost standpoint, we are paying for it. We never like to pay for things, but we have to. We believe we are in a pretty fair spot with Microsoft on that.

If you are an organization using Microsoft 365 solutions, it's okay. If you are on Google Solutions and using Google Cloud, it might be costly. Having the complete Microsoft bundle makes it feasible and cost-effective.

To get the full features of Purview, we currently need E5 enterprise licenses, which are expensive. I'm not sure what Microsoft's business model is for this, because we can acquire some of the features of Purview, or we can access it by speaking to our Microsoft partners or vendors. But I think Microsoft is currently pitching Purview primarily to medium to large organizations. I believe there is a real appetite for data governance in smaller businesses as well because all businesses have information that needs to be protected and governed effectively. I have clients who own small businesses who cannot justify the cost of E5 enterprise licenses. Some of them are on business standard or business premium licenses. I think Microsoft should consider reducing the price of Purview or making it more available to more people. Perhaps Microsoft could offer a scaled-down version of Purview. I know there is an appetite for Purview among smaller businesses, but they often have to do a cost-benefit analysis and decide that the additional cost is not justified. It's a shame because they would really benefit from some of the features of Purview.

We pay $15,000 per end user for the E5 license.

Microsoft Purview has reasonable pricing. The solution helps save money, and its cost is justified, at least for the organizations I've worked with. Microsoft Purview has a pay-per-use pricing model, so it's one of the most cost-effective tools, as your cost will be based on your usage. It's a pricing model that Microsoft has nailed down, making it great that whether you're a small organization or a multinational, giant organization, the pricing model for Microsoft Purview works. If you look into the cost of the breach versus the ongoing learning cost over a year or so, the solution's price is more than justified. However, I'm unable to give the exact figure on how much money Microsoft Purview can save an organization, as I'm a consultant who doesn't have precise information.

The cost is completely based on the number of users and the subscriptions that it provides. Also, the technology stack and how much data you have or how many connectors you are using, et cetera. There are a lot of different types of factors to consider when calculating cost. Since we went for more of a pay-as-you-go model, it is based on consumption. More complex organizations use more data and therefore the pricing will be different from smaller, less complex organizations.

Price-wise, I think it's very generous and accessible to not just enterprises but small to medium-sized companies as well. I think it's very fair in terms of how they break apart the storage and the actual computing, and that makes it very accessible. So, that is a very big plus for Purview. I think a lot of clients and organizations would feel that way as well. On the time front, I can absolutely speak about the cost of the solution since time is money. Saving analysts or developers, or engineers time can add or translate into actual savings if you can do the right calculation. But just to stick on that time front, I've seen it cut down, let's say, a given team, or a data governance team, I'd say, in a reduction of fifty to sixty percent of the time that would be spent answering maybe questions for other parts of the business about what a certain data means or where this data lives, they can just point them into certain directions, and they can point them to Purview and have those answers or have or have this questions answered. So that's a big part. And then also being able to have those ties from the business to IT and being able to bridge that gap and being able to have a technical asset ingested from the data side or, from the technical side, and then being able to get the business to interact with that as well. I would say that total savings in terms of on a team-to-team basis, I could see anywhere from fifty to seventy-five percent reduction in time spent on those activities just by having Purview.

Purview's price is pretty high when you factor in storage costs.

Some people find the tier licensing system complicated, but it offers a lot of value for money if we use the features. In fact, many clients who use the E5 licenses find that they can get a better return on investment on those licenses. Once they do, they find that the tier licensing system is very fairly priced.

The categorization within the licensing could be improved. There are a lot of solutions within Microsoft Purview. If the licensing could be a bit clearer and the solutions could be better categorized according to function and across multiple environments, that would be excellent. The licensing is very confusing. The pricing, for the solutions and value being provided, is fair. But that ties back to what I said about the licensing. There are a lot of standalone solutions you can get, and there are different licensing options for them. Depending on what you need, you can have a cost-effective solution; you can figure out your cost and benefit. It's affordable.

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. With the way information is being used and the growth of data, the need for additional licenses for auto-classification etc., will become more and more apparent. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft incorporated those into the basic license in the future.

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. This was a really nice aspect. I don't know how Microsoft's pricing stands today, but for us, it was very cheap and effective. We are still paying some money but it's not significant. They should look to keep the pricing moderate in the future.

The pricing is moderate. It's not too expensive, but it's not the most competitive. In terms of additional costs, there is an option for advanced data lineage for lineage visibility with Power BI, but because our client did not have Power BI we didn't use this.

Purview is reasonably priced and considerably less than most of its competitors.