Cyberhaven vs Google Workspace DLP

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.

CH

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)
GW

Google Workspace DLP

Google

6.9

Average across eight dimensions

Deployment
SaaS only
Licensing
Workspace Enterprise tier
Time to value
Fast
Segment
SMB / mid-market / enterprise
G2
—

Score by dimension

Dimension CH GW
Data residency control 3 2.5
Pricing value 6 8
Detection accuracy 8.5 7
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 6.5

What the comparison says

Both platforms are SaaS only, so deployment model is not what separates them here. Cyberhaven is described as medium to reach value, against fast for Google Workspace DLP.

Cyberhaven licenses on per user, Google Workspace DLP on workspace Enterprise tier. 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 and channel coverage. Google Workspace DLP leads on 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.

Google Workspace DLP

  • +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.

Evaluate nPro yourself

Free for up to 30 agents, no time limit, no credit card. Deploys on your own infrastructure in minutes.

Read the documentation Talk to an engineer All 16 platforms →

More Cyberhaven comparisons

CH vs NP CH vs FP CH vs SY CH vs MP CH vs TX CH vs DG CH vs NS CH vs ZS CH vs PP CH vs EP CH vs SF CH vs NF CH vs GT CH vs TM

More Google Workspace DLP comparisons

GW vs NP GW vs FP GW vs SY GW vs MP GW vs TX GW vs DG GW vs NS GW vs ZS GW vs PP GW vs EP GW vs SF GW vs NF GW vs GT GW vs TM

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.