Cyberhaven vs Endpoint Protector
A side-by-side comparison on deployment model, data residency, licensing basis and security coverage. Structural facts are verifiable against vendor documentation; the scored dimensions are our assessment.
Cyberhaven
Cyberhaven
7.1
Average across eight dimensions
- Deployment
- SaaS only
- Licensing
- Per user
- Time to value
- Medium
- Segment
- Mid-market / enterprise
- G2
- 4.5 (18)
Endpoint Protector
Netwrix (CoSoSys)
7.8
Average across eight dimensions
- Deployment
- Self-hosted
- Licensing
- Per endpoint
- Time to value
- Fast
- Segment
- SMB / mid-market
- G2
- 4.5 (162)
Score by dimension
| Dimension | CH | EP |
|---|---|---|
| Data residency control | 3 | 9 |
| Pricing value | 6 | 7.5 |
| Detection accuracy | 8.5 | 7.5 |
| Response speed | 8 | 7.5 |
| Ease of setup | 7.5 | 8.5 |
| Management UX | 8.5 | 8 |
| Integration depth | 7.5 | 7 |
| Security coverage | 8 | 7.5 |
What the comparison says
Cyberhaven is SaaS only and Endpoint Protector is self-hosted. Where your obligations dictate residency, that difference tends to settle the choice before any score is read.
Cyberhaven licenses on per user, Endpoint Protector on per endpoint. Neither bills on data volume, so the comparison is about what each licence includes rather than how much you send it.
Cyberhaven leads on classification. Endpoint Protector leads on residency, pricing value and ease of setup.
Cyberhaven
- +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.
Endpoint Protector
- +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.
Evaluate nPro yourself
Free for up to 30 agents, no time limit, no credit card. Deploys on your own infrastructure in minutes.
More Cyberhaven comparisons
More Endpoint Protector comparisons
Data last verified 2026-10-06. 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.