Insider risk management · October 2026 Edition
Microsoft Purview vs Cyberhaven
Zero of fourteen models named Microsoft Purview first on the direct prompt; one named Cyberhaven. Microsoft Purview was named by nine of the fourteen models and Cyberhaven by six and Microsoft Purview carries 16 labels and Cyberhaven 10, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in nine categories this edition.
Named in five categories this edition.
First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate6%20%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels1610A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Microsoft Purview reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Microsoft Purview · Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Cyberhaven · Above Security vs Microsoft Purview
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the insider risk management page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Microsoft PurviewFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCyberhaven
Direct01
Paraphrase00
Comparative01
Budget-constrained101 against Cyberhaven
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against Microsoft Purview · 1 against Cyberhaven
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Microsoft Purview and Cyberhaven stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | ||||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | ||||||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | ||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | ||||
| Kimi K2 | | |||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | ||||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | |
Microsoft Purview Cyberhaven first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Microsoft Purview on the left and Cyberhaven on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Microsoft Purview and Cyberhaven stood in it.
Cyberhaven first, Microsoft Purview not the choice
1 of 14 modelsMicrosoft Purview was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Gemini 3.5 FlashCyberhaven alternatives: Code42 Incydr, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Safetica, Teramind
Neither was the first choice, one was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Qwen 3.7 FlashAbove Security alternatives: DTEX InTERCEPT, Microsoft Purview
Neither was named
12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Teramind alternatives: Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management, Varonis Data Security Platform
GPT-5.4 miniMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Teramind, Varonis Data Security Platform
Perplexity SonarAbove Security alternatives: Code42 Incydr, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management, Varonis Data Security Platform
Grok 4.1 FastCode42 Incydr, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management alternatives: DTEX InTERCEPT, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Safetica
Mistral SmallAbove Security alternatives: Code42, DTEX Systems
DeepSeek V4 FlashCode42 Incydr alternatives: Above Security, Coro Insider Risk, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management
Llama 4 MaverickAbove Security alternatives: Code42, DTEX InTERCEPT, Gurucul, Securonix UEBA
Kimi K2Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Code42 Incydr, DTEX InTERCEPT, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
GLM 4.7 FlashXSafetica Intelligent Data Security Platform alternatives: Code42 Incydr, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Teramind
MiniMax M2.5Above Security, Safetica alternatives: Teramind, UpGuard
GPT-6 LunaCode42 Incydr alternatives: Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Teramind
Muse Glimmer 30BAbove Security alternatives: Code42 Incydr
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Microsoft Purview leads by sixteen points.
Microsoft Purview16%#3 of 11Cyberhaven0%#– of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Microsoft Purview2%#5 of 12Cyberhaven2%#7 of 12Enterprise
The order flips: Cyberhaven leads at enterprise.
Cyberhaven4%#8 of 13Microsoft Purview0%#– of 13What the models said about Microsoft Purview
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.
“Microsoft Purview's visibility is strongest within the Microsoft ecosystem; organizations using significant non-Microsoft infrastructure will have gaps” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Coro and Microsoft Purview are highly recommended for small businesses and startups (under 500 employees)” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Cyberhaven
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“Potential concerns: Lacks breadth of cross-domain behavioral coverage and integration; may require additional tools” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“usually cost-prohibitive for companies on a limited budget, often starting at $25,000 to $75,000+ per year” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“If your primary goal is protecting IP (source code, CAD drawings, customer lists): Go with Cyberhaven.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Best Overall for SaaS-First & IP-Heavy Companies: Cyberhaven (Data Detection & Response)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Microsoft PurviewMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs CyberhavenAbove Security vs Microsoft PurviewAbove Security vs CyberhavenCode42 Incydr vs Microsoft PurviewCode42 Incydr vs CyberhavenProofpoint Insider Threat Management vs Microsoft PurviewProofpoint Insider Threat Management vs CyberhavenMicrosoft Purview vs TeramindTeramind vs CyberhavenAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full insider risk standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.