Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Entra Permissions Management vs Microsoft Purview Data Governance comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Microsoft Entra Permissions...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
29th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Infrastructure Entitlement Management (CIEM) (4th)
Microsoft Purview Data Gove...
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
8th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
Data Governance (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Microsoft Entra Permissions Management is 0.5%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Data Governance is 4.8%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Microsoft Security Suite
 

Featured Reviews

Sameer Bhat - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides resource-based access and security, but time-bound access can be a problem
Entra ID is the core of the identity management that we have. This is the key product that we are using. I am currently also looking into Entra Private Access because we are planning to deploy about 50,000 desktops into Azure and use Azure Virtual Desktop. We would like to give access to the users from the desktop to on-premises applications. I learned that Entra Private Access is a good solution. That is not yet GA, but that is what we are looking for. Entra provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, but because our company also integrates with Nebula API, only administrators use Entra's pane. A normal person who wants to get onboarded can do self-service using Nebula. The features for whitelisting and other things are definitely there. That is what we use specifically. Application IDs, enterprise applications, and all those things are already there, so we have more efficiency. There is also security because we usually do not allow user identities to get direct access to Azure resources. Usually, we use the service principles from Entra ID, so this way, it increases security. Entra has helped to save time for our IT administrators. We tend to automate a lot of things. We can do automation using Graph APIs and save time. It is hard to quantify the time savings, but there has been a medium amount of time savings. Entra has helped to save our organization money. We care about security and risk more than money, but it also saves money. We are premium customers, and because we have a commit-to-consume contract with Microsoft of multi-million dollars, the money does not come into it because we have to consume those resources.
James McDowall - PeerSpot reviewer
The sensitivity and retention options in Purview are excellent
Some of the menu headings may not be easy to understand for some people. For example, when I first used Purview, I noticed that one of the self-compliance centers had changed its name. Microsoft has done a huge amount of updates, and sometimes it's hard to keep track of what Purview can do. We almost constantly have to explore it. Maybe Microsoft could have a 365 roadmap where we can look at upcoming features, or some kind of bulletin announcement for Purview users that explains new features and what they can do in simple terms. We could also look at the menu settings. In my experience of using Purview, we've never used it as an exclusive system for IT professionals or technical staff. We were very keen that other specialists around the business made use of some of these features because we thought that some of what Purview could do was relevant to other departments as well as IT. For example, we have HR managers and financial staff who use it. I think that some of the terminology in Purview is pitched toward IT and tech professionals, and it may not be immediately understood by other specialists. This is something that could be improved.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Multifactor authentication is valuable."
"The solution integrates well with our infrastructure and other systems without any issues."
"It is very easy to learn the interface, and it is very user-friendly."
"The most important aspect is our vision to create a data marketplace and Data Governance policies."
"Purview helps mitigate risk and allows us to govern the information being shared among apps and devices."
"The time to onboard is pretty short."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the tracking activity and device onboarding."
"One of the best features is the classification rules, especially the scan rule sets. They are really useful, especially when we need to understand the current data the company has to ensure that all the problematic data can be put under someone's responsibility."
"Purview's greatest benefit for us is data discovery."
 

Cons

"The solution's pricing and support services need improvement."
"We use a third-party API called Nebula API to integrate the account for authorization. The time-bound access area in Entra can be a problem. It can be improved in terms of the granularity of the permissions."
"The standard support is acceptable, but sometimes it doesn't respond fast enough. Overall, it doesn't meet our expectations."
"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."
"One area for improvement is better documentation on what is working and what is not, as well as what features are allowed depending on your licensing model. It's essential to know if a feature isn't working due to missing licenses."
"Enhancing the tool's capability to connect to multiple sources would be valuable."
"Licensing is frustrating due to multiple modules and licenses. The feature might be available in the console, but it won't work without the proper license, creating confusion."
"Purview's data loss prevention for macOS endpoints has some limitations, and the end-user experience of recovering from a failure is lacking."
"Privacy features should be integrated into the core product rather than offered as optional add-ons, as privacy is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement."
"The support could be better, particularly with consulting."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product cost is in the mid to high range."
"We are a Fortune 500 company, so we always negotiate with Microsoft."
"The pricing is moderate. It's not too expensive, but it's not the most competitive."
"Purview is included in our Microsoft E5 licensing."
"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."
"Microsoft Purview is a subscription-based service, so we need either an E3 or E5 license to use it."
"Price-wise, I think it's very generous and accessible to not just enterprises but small to medium-sized companies as well. I think it's very fair in terms of how they break apart the storage and the actual computing, and that makes it very accessible. So, that is a very big plus for Purview."
"Purview's price is pretty high when you factor in storage costs."
"While Purview's standard pricing might not be accessible to most small businesses, we were fortunate to benefit from the educational pricing which made it a financially viable option for our needs."
"The solution is extremely affordable for the K-12 space."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Microsoft Security Suite solutions are best for your needs.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Entra Permissions Management?
The product cost is in the mid to high range. You need to have a good budget to implement it, so it is considered fairly expensive for our market. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Entra Permissions Management?
The solution's pricing and support services need improvement.
What do you like most about Microsoft Azure Purview?
It is designed to seamlessly connect to various data sources, which is particularly beneficial for our customers who primarily use Microsoft technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Purview?
The auto-tagging feature should be available at a lower licensing level.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Purview?
Auto-tagging should be available at lower levels of licensing. Right now, a high level of licensing is needed for auto-tagging, and this feature should be made available at a lower license level.
 

Also Known As

CloudKnox Permissions Management
Microsoft Purview, MS Azure Purview
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Entra Permissions Management vs. Microsoft Purview Data Governance and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.