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

Oracle Advanced Security vs Oracle Data Masking and Subsetting comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Oracle Advanced Security
Ranking in Data Masking
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Encryption (11th)
Oracle Data Masking and Sub...
Ranking in Data Masking
13th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Data Masking category, the mindshare of Oracle Advanced Security is 6.4%, up from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Data Masking and Subsetting is 4.0%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Masking
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1458726 - PeerSpot reviewer
Good support, stable, and offers encryption at both the column and table level
The most valuable feature is the data encryption option for columns and tables. We are also getting the benefit of detection data. If I want to share data with another Oracle user then the data sharing is automatically detected. We don't need to modify anything. This is a complete security solution and all of the features that we are using are available off the shelf.
reviewer1164618 - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable with good support but the single-sign on could be improved
Once the data masking was complete, we were not confident that the data was good. A lot of data modeling needed to be added to make sure that the quality of the data was satisfactory. The definition phase was very slow, but that was due to a lack of knowledge that the client had. We were fortunate to locate the correct resources. Finding the correct resources on the market is a problem. We were very fortunate. Some of the issues we were experiencing were with setting up the single sign-on in the beginning. There are not a lot of templates available to use, so we had to start many things from scratch. It wasn't difficult but I would have preferred it. They may have already improved or added more, as it's been a year from when we needed it. Generally speaking, I would like to see more templates available.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The features that are the most used by the customers and partners are, at the moment, for GDPR, so obviously data encryption and data reduction. Our customers also like the partitioning option."
"The most valuable feature is the data encryption option for columns and tables."
"This solution delivers the value that it is supposed to deliver."
 

Cons

"It is really constrained as an environment because you cannot change something that would be useful. It is a very good product because it is very similar to what you have on-premises. Yes, it is constrained, but it is expected because it is a platform as a service so it has to be constrained."
"Having a single command to encrypt a table would be an improvement."
"There are not a lot of templates available to use, so we had to start many things from scratch."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Masking solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Oracle Data Masking and Subsetting Pack
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBVI, illycaffe, Scottish water, trueblue, AirAsia
IBVI, illycaffe, Scottish water, trueblue, AirAsia
Find out what your peers are saying about Delphix, Informatica, Broadcom and others in Data Masking. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.