No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

MANTA Flow vs Microsoft Purview Data Governance comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

MANTA Flow
Ranking in Data Governance
36th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Purview Data Gove...
Ranking in Data Governance
1st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Data Governance category, the mindshare of MANTA Flow is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Governance is 11.5%, down from 21.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Governance Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Purview Data Governance11.5%
MANTA Flow0.8%
Other87.7%
Data Governance
 

Featured Reviews

LeandroSodré - PeerSpot reviewer
Data Governance Analyst at Data Meaning, Inc.
Very Powerful, with cloud based scalability, and highly efficient for both business and technical teams
I had some difficulties, trying to use the direct link which is metadata through files that you can upload to MANTA Flow and you can just say from there where that data is going. But we just figured out that sometimes, depending on the level of the granularity that if you want to link the object, you can not. For example, if you want to link the objects just by schema, sometimes it does not work. So you need to scroll down and link each table. Sometimes the table level does not work, and you need to go deeper and go to link column to column. We figured out that this was a bug in MANTA Flow, and we talked to them and I think they were fixing it. But in our case, we just realized that if we could link the objects at the lowest level possible, it would work. I was trying to develop, right now, some kind of automation to compare the listed revision that I have in MANTA Flow with some other revision. And I would like to do it in an automatic way. I would like to have some kind of API where I could call this object and the revision that I want and the same object and another revision that I wanted to compare with. And I could not see it as some API in MANTA Flow, and we have this feature on the user interface. I think it would be very powerful because if you want to automate just warn the data owners the structures were updated by looking at the object level, and send an email to these owners to see if that change makes sense.
AS
Tech lead at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Automated data discovery has streamlined management while configuration remains complex
Compared to Big-ID, Microsoft Purview Data Governance looks complicated to me. I do not feel it has a good user-level UI. The interface feels a little complicated compared to Big-ID. I did not appreciate the configuration part. It felt complex, whereas when I went for a Big-ID demo, the interface looked better and was easier to understand for any user.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Technical support works well, they resolve issues."
"The solution is stable. We have not found any fatal errors yet."
"I believe it is very powerful. And for technicians, you can see the impact analysis, you can compare versions. So you can see some revisions against some of the oldest ones. You can compare and see which pipelines were updated between them. I think it is very helpful to both sides, the technical and business teams."
"Data authentication enables us to classify documents based on whether they should be restricted for internal consumption or permitted for external sharing."
"I really like the entire system for auto-labeling content. It's a very refined system. I use the Keyword Query Language to define refined string-based metadata, and then I can really go deep into the specific data with the specific properties labeled in such and such a way."
"Overall, I would laud its ease of use, intuitive interface, and easy navigation."
"The e-discovery search is useful."
"Microsoft Purview's most valuable feature is its ability to identify content across a number of prescribed regulatory frameworks, including Microsoft, GDPR, PII, and UCC Financial."
"Microsoft Purview offers data protection across a multi-cloud and multi-platform environment."
"One important feature is data security, which both end users and the organization seek."
"Microsoft Purview's primary benefit lies in safeguarding sensitive and confidential data, thereby mitigating the risk of internal data exfiltration."
 

Cons

"One area of improvement for MANTA Flow is to add as many new data sources as possible. We have found that maybe they can support 100, but not 101, unfortunately."
"I would like to have some kind of API where I could call this object and the revision that I want and the same object and another revision that I wanted to compare with. And I could not see it as some API in MANTA Flow, and we have this feature on the user interface."
"One area of improvement for MANTA Flow is to add as many new data sources as possible. We have found that maybe they can support 100, but not 101, unfortunately."
"Blueprints and landing zones like we have in Azure would be great to see in Purview. The solution could offer a baseline or blueprint of recommended settings for compliance regulations such as GDPR and ISO, which could be applied with a simple switch in the options."
"I rate Microsoft support six out of 10. The standard support is acceptable, but sometimes it doesn't respond fast enough. Overall, it doesn't meet our expectations."
"The API needs some improvement when connecting to non-Microsoft API sources. This is a limiting factor."
"Because Purview is not a 100 percent data governance solution, it would help if we could pick some of the good capabilities of other products."
"Compared to Big-ID, Microsoft Purview Data Governance looks complicated to me. I do not feel it has a good user-level UI."
"Purview's data connector platform for non-Microsoft data sources is good, but there is some functionality that hasn't been developed yet. There are some servers that it can't connect to yet, because they're still in a trial process."
"The support could be better, particularly with consulting."
"There are differences when looking at an incident in the M365 portal versus Purview, and the main one is the advanced hunting. In the M365 portal, you can write KQL queries and fetch data. If that was available in Purview, it would be very good."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As a service company, we don't care about the price because the customer is paying, but the customers consider MANTA to be reasonable."
"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."
"I consider it cost-efficient because of the metrics it provides."
"Microsoft Purview is priced in the middle. It isn't the cheapest, but it isn't the most expensive. It's affordable compared to other public cloud services."
"Microsoft Purview is a subscription-based service, so we need either an E3 or E5 license to use it."
"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."
"I would rate the cost of Microsoft Purview a six out of ten with ten being the most expensive."
"The pricing is moderate. It's not too expensive, but it's not the most competitive."
"There is some competition out there, but the other solutions are quite expensive. They are enterprise tools that are a bit more mature but the license costs $100,000 for some of them. Purview is pay-per-use and a lot of companies are interested in that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Governance solutions are best for your needs.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
35%
Insurance Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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, ...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Purview?
The features in the actual data governance could be improved, and I think there is room for improvement in the product. We haven't used role-based access control in a complex way; it's somehow embe...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Azure Purview?
We are currently working with Microsoft Purview Data Governance and other Microsoft products. We are using Microsoft Purview Data Governance.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft Purview, MS Azure Purview
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about MANTA Flow vs. Microsoft Purview Data Governance and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,444 professionals have used our research since 2012.