Every DLP deployment starts by discovering that nobody agrees what “sensitive” means here. The policy work is the project; the licence is the small number.

per user / year entry list (about ₹4,316), rising materially for the full channel stack; one policy engine across endpoint, network, email, web and cloud with a large pre-built classifier library

Estates that want one DLP policy enforced everywhere rather than four products with four consoles — and the broadest single-vendor channel coverage on this page.

The catch: Breadth costs tuning: the classifier library is large and the first months are spent cutting false positives before blocking mode is credible. An India data region is not documented — confirm before assuming residency for classified content.

quoted as an add-on to Forcepoint DLP; behavioural risk scoring that raises or relaxes enforcement per user as their risk changes, rather than one static policy for everyone

Organisations whose false-positive problem is really a policy-granularity problem — the same action is fine from one person and not from another, and a single rule cannot express that.

The catch: An add-on, not a standalone purchase: it needs Forcepoint DLP underneath. Behavioural scoring also needs a baseline period before it is useful, so value arrives months after signature.

quoted per user or per data store within the Varonis platform; DLP that acts on the same classification and access-path map the DSPM half already built

Estates that already run Varonis for discovery and want enforcement driven by what the platform found, rather than a second product with a second definition of sensitive.

The catch: The case is much weaker without the Varonis platform underneath — it is the enforcement arm of a discovery investment, not a first DLP purchase. Quote-only.

quoted per endpoint, perpetual or subscription; device-level control of USB, print, clipboard, screenshot and local file operations, managed from the Trellix ePO console

Estates whose exfiltration path is physical and local — removable media, printing, the laptop that leaves the network — and who already run Trellix ePO for management.

The catch: Endpoint-scoped: it does not see the cloud copy or the webmail upload unless the network and discovery products are bought alongside. Rule-based classification needs manual maintenance as data changes.

quoted per appliance or throughput; inspects traffic in flight for policy violations at the network boundary, with no endpoint agent required

Estates that need inspection without deploying another agent, particularly where unmanaged devices sit on the corporate network.

The catch: Blind to anything encrypted it cannot terminate, which today is most traffic — and entirely blind once the laptop leaves the network. Network DLP alone routinely misses the USB stick.

per user / year published list across Discovery, Protection and Enterprise (about ₹5,976–₹11,952); DLP with insider-risk analytics and user coaching, sized and priced for the mid-market

Mid-market estates that want published pricing and a working deployment in weeks rather than an enterprise programme — and the user-coaching model, which changes behaviour without blocking work.

The catch: Less depth than the enterprise suites on classification sophistication and very large estates; documented deployments are mid-market. India data residency is not documented.

quoted per user, self-hosted; the same DLP and insider-risk engine kept entirely inside your own infrastructure

Regulated and localisation-sensitive estates that cannot send classified content or incident evidence to a vendor cloud.

The catch: You own the server, the database and the upgrade cycle; the cloud edition gets features first. Narrower channel coverage than the SaaS platform.

quoted per user in INR, on-premises or cloud; endpoint-centric DLP with user-activity monitoring, built and supported from India

Indian estates that want the vendor, the support engineer and the data in the same country, with an on-premises option and a price in rupees.

The catch: Narrower cloud-application coverage than the global suites, and documented deployments are Indian mid-market rather than global enterprise. Indian data-type classification is not documented — prove it against your own records.

quoted per user in INR; user behaviour analytics over endpoint activity — baselines normal and flags deviation rather than matching file content to a rule

Estates whose question is who is behaving differently rather than which file contained a card number — the resignation-shaped pattern that content rules never see.

The catch: Analytics, not enforcement: it produces signal and names no policy. Without a DLP alongside it you can see the behaviour and cannot stop the file.

quoted per endpoint in INR, frequently bundled with Seqrite endpoint protection; device control, application control and content rules on the same agent

Indian estates already running Seqrite endpoint protection that want data controls on the agent they have deployed rather than a second one.

The catch: A module on an endpoint suite rather than a full DLP platform: no network or cloud inspection, and no behavioural analytics. Right answer when the requirement is device control; wrong one when it is cloud egress.

quoted within the Cyera platform; DLP driven by the AI-native classification the DSPM half produces, including controls on data pasted into AI assistants

Cloud-first estates that want enforcement to inherit a classification they trust, and one of the few products here documenting AI-prompt as a channel.

The catch: Newer than the incumbent suites, and the strongest case assumes the Cyera platform underneath. Quote-only, and India residency is not documented.

quoted per user in INR from the Mumbai-built vendor; DLP that hands off to Seclore's rights management rather than only blocking — the file leaves protected instead of not leaving

Estates where files legitimately have to go outside and blocking is not an acceptable answer — the DLP decision becomes protect-and-send rather than allow-or-deny.

The catch: The distinctive capability assumes you also adopt Seclore's rights management; as a pure DLP it is narrower than Forcepoint or Trellix. Indian data-type classification is not documented despite the India-built positioning.

quoted inside the Proofpoint suite, commonly alongside email security; people-centric DLP with insider-risk telemetry, strongest where the exit is email

Estates already running Proofpoint for email security whose data-loss path is overwhelmingly outbound mail — the control sits where the traffic already is.

The catch: A module of a platform, not a standalone purchase: buying it without Proofpoint email security is unusual and priced accordingly. Weaker on USB, print and local device control than the endpoint-first suites.

quoted within Mimecast; insider risk built on file-movement telemetry — what moved, where it went and who moved it — rather than content-matching rules

Estates whose real question is departing-employee data theft, where the file's journey matters more than its contents and rule-writing has already failed.

The catch: Telemetry-first by design: it is deliberately not a rule-based blocking DLP, so estates that need to stop the transfer in the moment will find it monitors rather than prevents.

a module inside the Zero Trust Exchange subscription, not a separate purchase; inline inspection of web and cloud traffic that already passes the platform, plus CASB and SaaS posture

Estates already routing traffic through Zscaler — the inspection point exists, so data controls are a licence change rather than a deployment.

The catch: Inline coverage only: it sees what traverses the platform and nothing local — USB, print and offline file operations are outside its view entirely. Check whether your subscription already includes it before buying anything on this page.

a module of the Netskope platform where CASB and DLP are core rather than bolted on; eight Indian data centres with a Mumbai management plane supporting DPDP-aligned residency

Estates whose data problem is SaaS sprawl — including unsanctioned applications — and who want the inspection and the residency documented in the same platform.

The catch: Like every inline platform it is blind to local device activity. The strongest case assumes Netskope is already the SASE choice; bought alone it is an expensive DLP.

a Falcon module licensed per endpoint on the agent you already run; data controls with no second agent to deploy or reconcile

Falcon estates that want basic data controls without adding an agent — the single most common source of endpoint conflict on this page.

The catch: Narrower than a dedicated DLP suite: no email or deep cloud inspection, and classification is rule-based. It is the pragmatic answer for estates that will not tolerate another agent, not the complete one.

a module of the Coro modular platform, priced per user alongside the other modules an SMB turns on; cloud application and email data governance with deliberately few settings

Small estates with no security team that want a data control switched on rather than a project scoped — the honest floor of this category.

The catch: Deliberately simple: shallow classification, no behavioural analytics and no local device control. It is a starting position, not a compliance answer for a regulated estate.