Data loss prevention: 16 platforms compared
In DLP, the delivery model is itself a risk. DLP reads your most sensitive content by design. So a cloud product asks you to send a third party the very data you are protecting. Most of this market is now SaaS. That is why this table leads with deployment model. nPro DLP appears first and is marked as our own platform. Its email channel is detection only today, and the card says so.
nPro publishes this comparison. Where nPro appears as one of the platforms listed, its card is marked and its scores are our own assessment. Third-party review scores are sourced from public vendor profiles. Structural facts are verifiable against each vendor's documentation: deployment model, licensing basis and residency.
16 platforms
nPro DLP
NPRO TECH Sdn. Bhd.
Self-hosted only: publisher of this comparison.
Reviews
—
Licensing
$4.50/agent/mo
Average score
7.9
- +Inspection runs on your own infrastructure, so the content you protect never goes to a third party.
- +Included in the same $4.50 per-agent price as XDR, SIEM and EMS, with no metering on content scanned.
- +Regional detectors for NRIC, KTP and NPWP, with checksum validation and Malay keyword matching.
- −Email is detection only today. Inline blocking needs a mail gateway and is the next phase.
- −Launched in September 2026, so it has a far shorter track record than every other platform here.
Best for Regulated organisations in Malaysia and Indonesia that cannot send sensitive content to a cloud service for inspection.
Watch out New to market and email is monitor-only. Start in Monitor mode and pilot before relying on enforcement.
Forcepoint DLP
Forcepoint
Enterprise incumbent: on-premises capable.
Reviews
G2 4.4 (44)
Licensing
Per user, per module
Average score
7.8
- +One of the deepest content classification engines in the category, with very broad policy coverage.
- +Genuine on-premises deployment, which most of this table cannot offer.
- +Risk-adaptive protection adjusts enforcement to user behaviour rather than applying one static rule.
- −Among the most complex platforms here to configure and tune properly.
- −Licensing and module structure make total cost hard to forecast.
Best for Large regulated enterprises with the staff to run a full DLP programme.
Watch out Budget for a deployment project, not an installation. This is not a quick win.
Forcepoint DLP vs nPro DLP →Symantec DLP
Broadcom
Long-established enterprise DLP.
Reviews
G2 4.4 (149)
Licensing
Enterprise agreement
Average score
7.4
- +Very mature detection across endpoint, network, storage and cloud channels.
- +On-premises deployment with a long track record in finance and government.
- +Extensive prebuilt policy templates for major regulatory frameworks.
- −Broadcom's acquisition changed licensing and support terms significantly for many customers.
- −Interface and workflow feel dated relative to newer entrants.
Best for Enterprises already invested in the Symantec estate.
Watch out Get licensing terms in writing. Post-acquisition renewal pricing has surprised many buyers.
Symantec DLP vs nPro DLP →Microsoft Purview DLP
Microsoft
Bundled with Microsoft 365 E5.
Reviews
G2 4.6 (22)
Licensing
M365 E5 Compliance tier
Average score
7.2
- +Effectively included for organisations already licensed for M365 E5 Compliance.
- +Native coverage of Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive and Teams with no connectors to build.
- +Policies follow the label, so classification and protection stay attached to the file.
- −Coverage outside the Microsoft estate is thin. Third-party SaaS and non-Windows endpoints lag.
- −No on-premises option; inspection happens in Microsoft's cloud.
Best for Microsoft-centric organisations whose sensitive data lives in M365.
Watch out If material data sits outside Microsoft, this leaves real gaps.
Microsoft Purview DLP vs nPro DLP →Trellix DLP
Trellix
McAfee DLP lineage.
Reviews
G2 4.3 (91)
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
7.4
- +On-premises ePolicy Orchestrator management remains available.
- +Strong endpoint and removable media control heritage.
- +Integrates with the wider Trellix detection portfolio.
- −Post-merger portfolio consolidation makes the roadmap harder to read.
- −Cloud and SaaS channel coverage trails the cloud-native vendors here.
Best for Existing McAfee or Trellix estates extending into data protection.
Watch out Confirm which components are current and which are in sunset before committing.
Trellix DLP vs nPro DLP →Fortra DLP (Digital Guardian)
Fortra
Data-centric, deep endpoint visibility.
Reviews
G2 4.3 (64)
Licensing
Per endpoint or managed service
Average score
7.5
- +Tracks data lineage at the endpoint, so it can follow a file through copies and renames.
- +Available as on-premises, hosted or managed service.
- +Particularly strong for intellectual property protection rather than only regulated data.
- −Agent footprint and tuning effort are heavier than most alternatives here.
- −Pricing sits at the enterprise end, and the managed option adds materially to it.
Best for Manufacturers and research organisations protecting intellectual property.
Watch out Pilot the agent on real workloads before rollout. Performance is the usual complaint.
Fortra DLP (Digital Guardian) vs nPro DLP →Netskope
Netskope
SASE-native, inline cloud inspection.
Reviews
G2 4.4 (97)
Licensing
Per user
Average score
7.4
- +Inline inspection of cloud and web traffic is genuinely strong, not bolted on.
- +Very good visibility of shadow IT and unsanctioned SaaS usage.
- +One policy engine spans web, cloud and private application access.
- −SaaS only. Traffic is inspected in Netskope's cloud, with no self-hosted path.
- −Endpoint and on-premises data-at-rest coverage is weaker than the traditional vendors.
Best for Cloud-first organisations whose data risk is primarily SaaS and web.
Watch out No residency control over inspection. Assess against your regulatory position first.
Netskope vs nPro DLP →Zscaler DLP
Zscaler
Inline DLP within the Zero Trust Exchange.
Reviews
—
Licensing
Per user, per tier
Average score
7.0
- +Inline enforcement at internet scale with minimal latency impact.
- +Natural fit where Zscaler already handles web and private access.
- +Exact data match and indexed document matching are available at higher tiers.
- −SaaS only, with inspection performed in Zscaler's cloud.
- −Value depends heavily on already routing traffic through the Zscaler platform.
Best for Enterprises already standardised on Zscaler for secure access.
Watch out Standalone value is limited. This is a platform module rather than a product.
Zscaler DLP vs nPro DLP →Proofpoint DLP
Proofpoint
People-centric, email-led.
Reviews
G2 4.3 (61)
Licensing
Per user
Average score
7.1
- +Strongest email channel coverage in this table, which is where most leaks actually occur.
- +Insider threat management correlates user behaviour with data movement.
- +Good balance of detection quality and operational simplicity.
- −Primarily cloud-delivered. On-premises options are limited.
- −Coverage of data at rest in on-premises storage is thinner than the incumbents.
Best for Organisations whose primary data loss channel is email and user behaviour.
Watch out If you need endpoint and storage DLP as well, this is only part of the picture.
Proofpoint DLP vs nPro DLP →Endpoint Protector
Netwrix (CoSoSys)
Self-hosted virtual appliance.
Reviews
G2 4.5 (162)
Licensing
Per endpoint
Average score
7.8
- +Deploys as a virtual appliance you run yourself, so you keep genuine residency control.
- +Cross-platform agents for Windows, macOS and Linux, which is unusual in this category.
- +Among the fastest platforms here to get to a working policy.
- −Content classification is less sophisticated than the enterprise engines.
- −Cloud and SaaS channel coverage is limited compared with the SASE vendors.
Best for SMB and mid-market needing self-hosted device control and endpoint DLP.
Watch out Strong on device control, lighter on deep content inspection. Match that to your risk.
Endpoint Protector vs nPro DLP →Safetica
Safetica
SMB-oriented, on-premises option.
Reviews
G2 4.6 (203)
Licensing
Per user
Average score
7.6
- +Straightforward to deploy and operate with a small team.
- +On-premises deployment available alongside the cloud option.
- +Priced accessibly for organisations below enterprise scale.
- −Detection depth and policy sophistication trail the enterprise platforms.
- −Smaller partner and support footprint outside Europe.
Best for SMBs wanting workable data protection without a dedicated security team.
Watch out Verify regional support coverage before committing if you are outside Europe.
Safetica vs nPro DLP →Nightfall AI
Nightfall AI
API-first, ML classification.
Reviews
G2 4.6 (98)
Licensing
Per user or API volume
Average score
6.8
- +Machine learning classification performs well on unstructured content.
- +API-first design makes it straightforward to embed in custom applications.
- +Fast to connect to common SaaS tools without agents.
- −SaaS only. Content is sent to Nightfall for inspection.
- −Endpoint agents now exist for Windows and macOS, but network-channel coverage is minimal.
Best for Engineering-led teams protecting data inside SaaS and custom applications.
Watch out Strongest on SaaS and AI tools. Check endpoint coverage against your channels before treating it as a full DLP replacement.
Nightfall AI vs nPro DLP →Cyberhaven
Cyberhaven
Data lineage tracing.
Reviews
G2 4.5 (18)
Licensing
Per user
Average score
7.1
- +Traces data lineage rather than only matching content, so it catches transformed and renamed files.
- +Materially fewer false positives than pattern-matching approaches.
- +Investigation workflow shows the full path a file travelled.
- −Cloud-delivered with no self-hosted deployment.
- −Younger vendor with a smaller install base and less independent analyst coverage.
Best for Organisations where intellectual property leaves via transformation rather than obvious copying.
Watch out Assess vendor maturity and support depth alongside the technology.
Cyberhaven vs nPro DLP →GTB Technologies
GTB Technologies
On-premises and air-gap capable.
Reviews
G2 4.3 (20)
Licensing
Per endpoint or seat
Average score
7.5
- +Full on-premises deployment including air-gapped environments.
- +Inspects encrypted traffic at the network layer, which several competitors do not.
- +Covers endpoint, network and discovery from one platform.
- −Interface and reporting are dated compared with the newer vendors here.
- −Much smaller company, with correspondingly limited regional presence.
Best for Regulated or isolated environments where cloud inspection is not permitted.
Watch out Evaluate support responsiveness carefully given the vendor's size.
GTB Technologies vs nPro DLP →Trend Micro Integrated DLP
TrendAI (Trend Micro)
Module within the Trend estate.
Reviews
—
Licensing
Add-on per endpoint
Average score
7.2
- +Adds DLP to an existing Trend Micro deployment without a new vendor.
- +Reasonable cost where the endpoint agent is already installed.
- +Good regional presence and support across Southeast Asia.
- −Capability is narrower than dedicated DLP platforms.
- −Best value only realised if you already run Trend Micro endpoint protection.
Best for Existing Trend Micro customers adding basic data protection.
Watch out Standalone, this would not make a DLP shortlist on capability alone.
Trend Micro Integrated DLP vs nPro DLP →Google Workspace DLP
Native to Workspace Enterprise.
Reviews
—
Licensing
Workspace Enterprise tier
Average score
6.9
- +Included with Workspace Enterprise tiers at no additional licence cost.
- +Native coverage of Gmail, Drive and Chat with nothing to deploy.
- +Straightforward rules that a generalist administrator can manage.
- −Covers only Google Workspace. No endpoint, network or third-party SaaS coverage.
- −Inspection happens in Google's cloud with no residency alternative.
Best for Organisations whose sensitive data lives entirely inside Google Workspace.
Watch out Scope is the limitation, not the quality. Anything outside Workspace is invisible.
Google Workspace DLP vs nPro DLP →Capability matrix
| Capability | NP | FP | SY | MP | TX | DG | NS | ZS | PP | EP | SF | NF | CH | GT | TM | GW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-hosted deployment | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ~ | — | — | ~ | ✓ | ~ | — | — | ✓ | ~ | — |
| Fully air-gapped operation | ✓ | ~ | ~ | — | ~ | — | — | — | — | ~ | — | — | — | ✓ | — | — |
| Endpoint DLP agent | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | — | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| Network / egress inspection | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | — | ~ | ✓ | ~ | — |
| Email DLP | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Cloud app (CASB) coverage | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| ML-assisted content classification | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| Optical character recognition | — | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | — | ~ |
| Insider risk analytics | — | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | — | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | — | ✓ | ~ | — | — |
| Prebuilt regulatory templates | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Deploys in under one day | ✓ | — | — | ✓ | — | — | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ~ | — | ~ | ✓ |
✓ supported · ~ partial or requires an add-on · — not available
How to read this comparison
The delivery model is itself the risk. DLP reads your most sensitive content by design. A cloud product asks you to send a third party the data you are trying to protect. Put that at the start of your evaluation, not the end.
Check which channels enforce and which only detect. Vendors often count a channel as covered when the product can see an event but cannot stop it. That difference decides whether you can write a policy against it.
Where inspection runs sets what your detectors can know. Inspection inside your own network can use regional and local-format detectors. The content never leaves. That matters for identifiers generic cloud classifiers handle poorly.
Compare two platforms
Comparison data last verified 2026-10-06. Vendors change packaging frequently — tell us if anything here is out of date and we will correct it.