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

Microsoft Purview Data Governance vs SAP Data Hub [EOL] comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 15, 2026

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 Purview Data Gove...
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
Data Governance (1st), Microsoft Security Suite (12th)
SAP Data Hub [EOL]
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

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.
VM
GTM Lead at Capgemini
The solution is seamless, but the database sometimes leads to confusion
We used to have multiple different kinds of databases, which internally, had different compliance levels. Retention management is very different now. If the policy is live and the claim has been completed, I couldn't archive the claim. I needed to keep a reference integrity of that claim and understand which policy paid out the claim. With this solution, the policy came in six months ago and qualified for archiving. The claim had been paid and in every environment, the claim had been closed, including the reporting system, the claims system, etc. With the payment set gateway, I can just go and archive. But, we had a hard time during this process. I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best part is that I can create classifications per my requirements. I use it to classify multiple platforms like AWS, GCP, Azure, and different file sharing systems."
"Their data labeling or data classification is particularly valuable because we want to categorize all of our data into confidential, public, or internal."
"Data segregation is the most valuable feature."
"The DLP part and the AI related ones are the most valuable features; I mostly appreciate their automated data discovery."
"The data protection feature is vital as it controls who can access data when it moves out of our protected boundary."
"You can set up automated dates to alert on internal data."
"Purview's greatest benefit for us is data discovery."
"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."
"They lead in terms of business functions, and no other solution has business functions already implemented to perform business analysis, with a lot of prebuilt business functions for machine learning and orchestration that we can use directly to get an analysis out from the existing enterprise data."
"Having this solution enables us to approach our clients to upgrade their databases, and we upgrade them according to their business requirements."
"SAP is one of the most seamless ERPs that have integrated SAP archiving within Excel. I have not seen this with any other database."
"The most valuable feature is the S/4HANA 1909 On-Premise"
"Its connection to on-premise products is the most valuable. We mostly use the on-premise connection, which is seamless. This is what we prefer in this solution over other solutions. We are using it the most for the orchestration where the data is coming from different categories. Its other features are very much similar to what they are giving us in open source. Their push-down approach is the most advantageous, where they push most of the processing on to the same data source. This means that they have a serverless kind of thing, and they don't process the data inside a product such as Data Hub. They process the data from where the data is coming out. If it is coming from HANA, to capture the data or process it for analytics, orchestration, or management, they go to the HANA database and give it out. They don't process it on Data Hub. This push-down approach increases the processing speed a little bit because the data is processed where it is sitting. That's the best part and an advantage. I have used another product where they used to capture the data first and then they used to process it and give it. In Data Hub, it is in reverse. They process it first and give it, and then they put their own manipulations. They lead in terms of business functions. No other solution has business functions already implemented to perform business analysis. They have a lot of prebuilt business functions for machine learning and orchestration, which we can use directly to get an analysis out from the existing data. Most of the data is sitting as enterprise data there. That's a major advantage that they have."
 

Cons

"Overcoming certain control issues would significantly enhance our overall satisfaction."
"Compared to Big-ID, Microsoft Purview Data Governance looks complicated to me. I do not feel it has a good user-level UI."
"The Microsoft Purview data connector platform, which supports ingestion from non-Microsoft data sources, can be somewhat complex."
"There should be more clarity about the costing, particularly how the cost is calculated, especially when utilizing health reports and quality features."
"In my experience, Purview hasn't come far enough yet to help us reduce the number of solutions that interact with each other."
"Microsoft Purview's compliance processes for handling various Mac and iOS devices could be significantly improved."
"One of the challenges is that Microsoft changes things so quickly that sometimes you're just playing catch-up, and sometimes these changes aren't communicated effectively."
"I would like to have AI functionality on the dashboard to help me analyze and report on the data that we capture using Purview on a daily basis."
"Its performance needs improvement. It is a little slow. It is not the best in the market, and there are other products that are much better than this."
"Nowadays there are some inconsistencies in data bases, however, they upgrade and release the versions to market."
"The company has everything offshore."
"Nowadays there are some inconsistencies in data bases, however, they upgrade and release the versions to market."
"In 2018, connecting it to outside sources, such as IoT products or IoT-enabled big data Hadoop, was a little complex. It was not smooth at the beginning. It was unstable. It took a lot of time for the initial data load. Sometimes, the connection broke, and we had to restart the process, which was a major issue, but they might have improved it now. It is very smooth with SAP HANA on-premise system, SAP Cloud Platform, and SAP Analytics Cloud. It could be because these are their own products, and they know how to integrate them. With Hadoop, they might have used open-source technologies, and that's why it was breaking at that time. They are providing less embedded integration because they want us to use their other products. For example, they don't want to go and remove SAP Analytics Cloud and put everything in Data Hub. They want us to use SAP Analytics Cloud somewhere else and not inside the Data Hub. On the integration part, it lacks real-time analytics, and it is slow. They should embed the SAP Analytics Cloud inside Data Hub or support some kind of analysis. They do provide some analysis, but it is not extensive. They are moreover open source. So, we need a lot of developers or data scientists to go in and implement Python algorithms. It would be better if they can provide their own existing algorithms and give some connections and drop-down menus to go and just configure those. It will make things really quick by increasing the embedded integrations. It will also improve the process efficiency and processing power. Its performance needs improvement. It is a little slow. It is not the best in the market, and there are other products that are much better than this. In terms of technology and performance, it is a little slow as compared to Microsoft and other data orchestration products. I haven't used other products, but I have read about those products, their settings, and the milliseconds that they do. In Azure Purview, they say that they can copy, manage, or transform the data within milliseconds. They say that they can transform 100 gigabytes of data within three to five seconds, which is something SAP cannot do. It generally takes a lot of time to process that much amount of data. However, I have never tested out Azure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable because most of our clients already have an E3 license, which makes implementation easy."
"I consider it cost-efficient because of the metrics it provides."
"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 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."
"The price is reasonable considering its value."
"Currently, the licensing differs for the governance side compared to the risk and compliance side."
"To get the full features of Purview, we currently need E5 enterprise licenses, which are expensive."
"People often and unjustly say that Microsoft product pricing is not in the scope of reality, that it's just too expensive at times. I do not feel that is the case at all... If I'm able to let go of 30 to 70 percent of my IT administration staff, that makes up for a lot of money."
"The Cloud is very expensive, but SAP HANA previous service is okay."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Governance solutions are best for your needs.
896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise33
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Microsoft Purview, MS Azure Purview
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Kaeser Kompressoren, HARTMANN
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Collibra, Informatica and others in Data Governance. Updated: May 2026.
896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.