Cyberhaven vs Proofpoint 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)
PP

Proofpoint DLP

Proofpoint

7.1

Average across eight dimensions

Deployment
SaaS only
Licensing
Per user
Time to value
Medium
Segment
Mid-market / enterprise
G2
4.3 (61)

Score by dimension

Dimension CH PP
Data residency control 3 3.5
Pricing value 6 6
Detection accuracy 8.5 8
Response speed 8 8
Ease of setup 7.5 7.5
Management UX 8.5 8
Integration depth 7.5 8
Security coverage 8 8

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 medium for Proofpoint DLP.

Cyberhaven licenses on per user, Proofpoint DLP on per user. Neither bills on data volume, so the comparison is about what each licence includes rather than how much you send it.

Neither platform leads the other by a clear margin on any dimension, so the decision rests on the structural facts above rather than on the scoring.

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.

Proofpoint DLP

  • +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.

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 EP CH vs SF CH vs NF CH vs GT CH vs TM CH vs GW

More Proofpoint DLP comparisons

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

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.