12 Best Email DLP Tools for 2026 (Email Data Loss Prevention Software)

Email is still one of the fastest ways sensitive information leaves an organization. It can happen through a wrong recipient, an overshared file, auto-forwarding rules, or a reply sent in a hurry. That is why Email Data Loss Prevention (Email DLP) remains a practical control for both enterprises and SMBs.

Email DLP tools reduce risk by detecting sensitive content and enforcing policy actions, such as blocking, quarantining, encrypting, or prompting users before a message is sent. The challenge is that “Email DLP” can mean different things across vendors, from simple keyword rules to advanced classification, OCR, and incident workflows.

In this guide, we compare 12 Email DLP tools for 2026, with quick picks, an evaluation framework, and a feature-level matrix. We will also cover common mistakes teams make when rolling out email DLP and where email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC fit into a stronger email security strategy.

The 2026 Evaluation Framework (How We Picked And Ranked These DLP Tools)

Not every “DLP” product is strong at email. Some are built for endpoints first and treat email as an add-on, while others are designed around outbound mail controls, coaching, and compliance workflows. To keep this list practical, we evaluated each tool using the same email-focused checkpoints so the comparisons stay fair and consistent.

Email-specific criteria

1. Outbound inspection depth (body, attachments, archives)
2. Classification (labels, auto-classification, sensitivity types)
3. Policy controls (block, encrypt, quarantine, warn, justify)
4. User coaching (nudges, “are you sure?” prompts)
5. Incident workflow (triage, audit trail, approvals)
6. Integrations (M365/Gmail, SIEM, ticketing, endpoint DLP, CASB)
7. Encryption/IRM options (key management, recipient controls)
8. Admin usability and tuning (false positive control)
9. Reporting and compliance mapping
10. MSP readiness (multi-tenant, roles, delegated admin)

The 12 Best Email Data Loss Prevention Tools For 2026

This section groups tools by how teams typically buy and deploy Email Data Loss Prevention (DLP) in 2026: suite-led enterprise platforms, cloud-native stacks, endpoint and insider-risk tooling, and SMB-friendly options.

Here’s a quick comparsion:

Enterprise All-in-One DLP Platforms

These tools are typically chosen when you need deep policy control, mature workflows, and strong reporting for audits. They usually require more tuning, but they give you the most flexibility once stabilized.

1) Forcepoint DLP (Best For Deep Policy Control Across Channels)

Forcepoint DLP is typically considered when teams want mature policy depth and broad coverage. It is a common fit for organizations that need consistent controls across email, endpoints, and network channels.

Key capabilities

• Central policy engine for sensitive data patterns
• Strong incident workflows and remediation options
• Broad coverage across multiple data movement paths

Pricing 

• Pricing is typically quote-based depending on deployment model and requirements.

Pros

• Strong policy depth and mature enterprise coverage
• Designed for complex environments and compliance needs
• Broad channel coverage beyond email

Cons

• Quote-based pricing makes upfront budgeting harder
• Rollout and tuning can take time in large environments
• Admin experience depends heavily on deployment architecture

Who should choose it?

• Enterprises that need strict policy control and advanced workflows
• Security teams managing multiple data exfiltration paths, not just email

2) Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention (Best For Microsoft 365-first Organizations)

Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention is often the default starting point for organizations already standardized on Microsoft 365. The strongest advantage is administrative alignment: identity, collaboration, and compliance tooling sit in the same ecosystem.

Email DLP is strongest when it sits on top of a solid sender identity layer. Locking in DMARC alongside DLP helps you cover both sides of the risk: attackers impersonating your domain and legitimate users accidentally sending sensitive data out.

Key capabilities

• DLP policies tied to Microsoft data classifications and labels
• Controls across Exchange Online email and Microsoft 365 content locations
• Policy tips, user prompts, and enforcement actions
• Reporting and compliance-focused dashboards

Pricing 

• Public list pricing is available for Microsoft Purview Suite on Microsoft’s security pricing pages. In USD-listed regions, it is shown as USD $12 per user/month (paid yearly). Purview features are also included in Microsoft 365 E5, and subsets appear in other compliance offers depending on licensing.

Pros

• Natural fit when you already live in Microsoft 365
• Strong compliance alignment and reporting
• Centralized admin experience for Microsoft-heavy orgs

Cons

• Licensing can be confusing across SKUs and add-ons
• Some advanced scenarios require additional components
• Cross-platform depth varies outside Microsoft ecosystem
• DLP and classification policies can generate false positives and typically need ongoing tuning to reduce alert noise.

Who should choose it?

• Teams with Microsoft 365 as the primary email and collaboration stack
• Compliance-driven organizations that want governance in the same ecosystem

3) Proofpoint Enterprise DLP (Best For Email-first DLP Programs That Still Need Cross-channel Coverage)

Proofpoint Enterprise DLP is positioned strongly around email protection and then extends to other channels. 

For organizations that treat email as the primary risk path, this “email-first” approach fits operational workflows, especially when combined with a structured phishing reporting process that improves reporting speed and reduces both social engineering success and accidental data leakage.

Key capabilities

• Email-focused detection and enforcement workflows
• Extension of DLP policies beyond email depending on deployment
• Policy actions aligned with incident response workflows

Pricing

• Pricing is typically quote-based based on scope, channels, and licensing structure.

Pros

• Strong alignment for email-centric DLP requirements
• Enterprise-grade incident workflows
• Extends beyond email for broader coverage

Cons

• Quote-based pricing limits fast budget comparisons
• Best outcomes depend on careful tuning and exceptions
• May require broader platform components for full coverage

Who should choose it?

• Organizations where outbound email risk is the primary DLP driver
• Security teams that want email-centric controls with enterprise workflow depth

Overview of Enterprise All-in-one DLP Platforms

Cloud-Native And Modern DLP Solutions

Cloud-native DLP is usually selected when your sensitive data lives across SaaS apps, cloud email, and modern collaboration tools. These tools tend to emphasize faster deployment, API-based coverage, and cross-app remediation.

4) Netskope One DLP (Best For Sse-style Cloud Controls With Unified Policy)

Netskope is commonly evaluated when organizations want cloud-first controls across users, apps, and data movement patterns. Email DLP fits as part of a broader “cloud usage control” approach rather than a standalone email-only product.

Key capabilities

• Unified DLP policies across cloud app usage patterns
• Strong cloud visibility and enforcement options
• Policy consistency across multiple application categories

Pricing

• Pricing is typically subscription-based and quote-driven, based on selected components and scale.

Pros

• Strong fit for cloud-heavy organizations
• Unified policy approach across many apps
• Good visibility into cloud app usage

Cons

• Quote-based pricing and packaging can be complex
• Requires careful architecture planning for best results
• Email controls may be one part of a broader roll-out

Who should choose it?

• Cloud-first organizations that want unified policy across many apps
• Teams adopting SSE patterns and standardizing enforcement

5) Nightfall (Best For Fast Saas Integrations Across Email And Common Cloud Apps)

Nightfall is often selected by teams that want quick integrations across popular SaaS apps, including email-related workflows, and prefer a cloud-first approach to detection and remediation.

It can be a good fit when your “leak surface” is not only the mailbox, but also shared links and cloud app permissions that lead to sensitive data exposure in everyday workflows.

Key capabilities

• SaaS-focused data detection and remediation actions
• Integrations across common cloud apps and email-related systems
• Automated response actions like redaction, quarantine, or permission restriction (depending on configuration)

Pricing 

• Pricing is tiered and quote-assisted, with plan selection based on coverage scope.

Pros

• Strong fit for SaaS-heavy environments and fast onboarding
• Helpful remediation workflows for cloud exposure patterns
• Good option when leaks happen through cloud sharing behavior

Cons

• Public pricing structure may require a demo for exact numbers
• Email DLP depth depends on the email stack and integration
• Requires thoughtful tuning to avoid over-blocking

Who should choose it?

• Teams that want quick time to value with SaaS integrations
• Organizations where exposure risk includes email plus cloud app sharing

6) Zscaler Data Loss Prevention (Best For Cloud-first Organizations Already Using Zscaler Platform Bundles)

Zscaler DLP often comes up when an organization is already invested in Zscaler’s security stack and wants DLP as an integrated control. This can reduce tool sprawl and help apply consistent policies across user traffic.

Key capabilities

• Cloud-first DLP coverage across multiple channels
• Central policy management in a cloud security context
• Reporting aligned to cloud security visibility

Pricing 

• Zscaler positions pricing as subscription-based and quote-driven.

Pros

• Strong fit when you already standardize on Zscaler
• Central policy enforcement across user traffic
• Consistent controls across cloud access patterns

Cons

• Quote-based pricing reduces quick comparability
• Packaging depends on selected bundles and add-ons
• Tuning policies across many apps requires time

Who should choose it

• Organizations already using Zscaler who want to extend into DLP
• Teams that want cloud-first enforcement and consistent policies

Overview Cloud-native And Modern DLP Solutions

Endpoint And Insider Threat-Focused DLP

These tools are typically chosen when the biggest risk is user behavior, endpoint exfiltration, and insider-driven events. Email coverage can be strong, but the main differentiator is often investigation context and control at the device level.

7) CrowdStrike Falcon Data Protection (Best For Endpoint-led Programs That Want Platform Bundling)

CrowdStrike Falcon Data Protection is typically evaluated by organizations already standardized on CrowdStrike that want to extend controls into data protection as part of a broader endpoint-led platform strategy.

Key capabilities

• Endpoint-led data protection controls
• Platform-style operational alignment for security teams
• Policy enforcement tied to device and access patterns

Pricing

• Pricing often starts at $59.99 per device/year for specific packages, with higher bundles priced above that. 

Pros

• Strong fit when you already run CrowdStrike at scale
• Platform consolidation can reduce tool sprawl
• Good for endpoint-led programs focused on device controls

Cons

• Email DLP depth depends on how you integrate email channel controls
• Some pricing and packaging remains quote-based
• Tuning still required to reduce false positives and user friction

Who should choose it?

• Organizations already invested in CrowdStrike who want data protection as part of a unified platform
• Endpoint-led security teams that prioritize device-layer controls

8) Teramind (Best For Insider-risk Visibility Tied To User Activity Evidence)

Teramind is commonly evaluated when insider risk and activity visibility are key goals and when teams want strong evidence trails that support investigations.

Key capabilities

• User activity monitoring and evidence capture workflows
• Policy rules tied to behaviors and data movement patterns
• Investigation-friendly reporting and incident context

Pricing 

• Uses an interactive seat-based calculator

Pros

• Strong fit when insider risk investigation context is critical
• Evidence-focused workflows can support HR and security investigations
• Useful for behavior-linked policy enforcement

Cons

• Pricing details may require interactive quoting or sales
• Rollout requires careful privacy and governance planning
• Needs clear internal policy communication to avoid backlash

Who should choose it?

• Organizations prioritizing insider-risk investigations and evidence trails
• Teams that need visibility into user behavior patterns related to data movement

Overview of Endpoint And Insider Threat-Focused DLP

SMB-friendly And Specialized Solutions

This category is usually chosen by SMB and mid-market teams that want practical deployment, predictable day-to-day use, and coverage that focuses on the most common leak paths without building a heavyweight enterprise DLP program.

9) Endpoint Protector byCoSoSys, now part of Netwrix (Best For Device Control Plus DLP With Flexible Deployments)

Endpoint Protector is commonly evaluated by teams that want practical controls across endpoint data movement and device channels, with DLP as part of the overall package.

Key capabilities

• Device and port control combined with DLP policy enforcement
• Deployment flexibility (varies by product options)
• Policy workflows that support common compliance requirements

Pricing 

• Pricing is typically quote-based and depends on deployment model and requirements.

Pros

• Strong fit when device control is a priority
• Practical DLP alignment with endpoint controls
• Flexible deployment options for different environments

Cons

• No public list pricing for rapid comparisons
• Policy success depends on careful tuning and exceptions
• Email controls may not be as “email-native” as email-first tools

Who should choose it?

• Organizations that need strong endpoint control and want DLP alongside it
• Teams prioritizing device channels and data movement from endpoints

10) Fortra DLP (Best For Modular DLP Packaging And Platform-style Coverage)

Fortra DLP (formerly Digital Guardian) is often evaluated when teams want a DLP-focused platform with modular packaging and a strong emphasis on protecting sensitive data across environments.

It also fits best in programs that take outbound email seriously. Pairing DLP with email deliverability monitoring helps you keep sender reputation steady and reduce delivery issues, while DLP focuses on stopping sensitive data from leaving in the first place.

Key capabilities

• DLP platform approach with policy and classification workflows
• Modular packaging and add-on structure
• Broad coverage beyond email depending on deployment

Pricing

• Pricing is generally quote-based based on scale and selected modules.

Pros

• Modular approach can match real-world needs
• Platform-style coverage beyond just email
• Packaging emphasizes predictable structure

Cons

• No public list pricing for fast comparisons
• Tuning and rollout still require planning and governance
• Full cost depends on scope and add-ons

Who should choose it?

• Security teams that want a DLP-centric platform with modular packaging
• Organizations that need broad protection and structured rollout options

11) Trellix DLP (Best For Organizations Already Standardized On Trellix Security Tooling)

Trellix DLP is often considered when an organization is already invested in Trellix security products and wants DLP as a compatible extension.

Key capabilities

• DLP policy enforcement across common enterprise channels
• Reporting and incident visibility for sensitive data events
• Alignment with Trellix ecosystem tooling

Pricing

• Pricing is typically quote-based depending on environment and licensing.

Pros

• Useful alignment for Trellix-standardized environments
• Broad DLP coverage as part of an ecosystem approach
• Familiar procurement for existing Trellix customers

Cons

• No public list pricing available
• Capabilities vary based on deployment and modules
• Rollout still requires policy tuning and governance

Who should choose it?

• Organizations already running Trellix tooling that want DLP without adding a brand-new stack
• Teams that want ecosystem alignment for procurement and operations

Overview of SMB-friendly And Specialized Solutions

PowerDMARC: Email Authentication And Monitoring Layer That Complements DLP

Email Data Loss Prevention (DLP) protects what your users send. PowerDMARC strengthens how your domain proves sender identity, so outbound control is not only about content, but also about trust.

Where PowerDMARC Adds Value Alongside DLP

• Stops brand impersonation: Enforcing Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) helps reduce spoofing attempts and improves visibility into who is sending on your behalf.
• Closes gaps across sending sources: Aligning Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) alongside DMARC reduces blind spots created by misconfigured tools, vendors, or new mail streams.
• Complements DLP enforcement: DLP reduces sensitive data exposure through outbound email, while authentication monitoring helps confirm that messages claiming to be from your domain are legitimate.

Built For MSPs And Multi-Domain Teams

PowerDMARC is designed for managed service providers and multi-tenant teams that need centralized visibility across multiple domains and customer environments, without switching between dashboards.

Pricing

PowerDMARC plans start at $8/month, with higher tiers available for larger organizations and service providers.

If you want to see how this fits your environment, you can start a free trial to explore DMARC reporting and domain visibility or book a demo for a guided walkthrough.

Common Mistakes That Sabotage Email Data Loss Prevention And How To Avoid Them

Most Email Data Loss Prevention (DLP) rollouts do not fail because the tool is weak. They fail because policies get pushed too fast, coverage gaps get ignored, and users find workarounds before security teams can tune the rules.

Below are the mistakes that cause the most pain in real deployments, plus practical fixes that keep protection strong without breaking day-to-day work.

Blocking Too Aggressively On Day One

Going straight to hard blocks creates friction, floods the queue with false positives, and trains users to look for shortcuts. It usually happens when teams try to prove value quickly but skip the baseline and tuning phase.

How to avoid it:

• Start in monitor, coach, or warn mode so you can see real behavior before enforcing
• Pilot policies with one department first, then expand in waves
• Build exception paths for legitimate workflows so users do not route around controls
• Add user-facing policy tips that explain what triggered the rule and what to do next
• Move to block or quarantine only after the top noisy rules are tuned down

What to measure: Track false positive rate over time and compare it against user overrides and exception volume to confirm tuning is improving outcomes, not just shifting noise.

Ignoring Attachments And Archives

Many leaks do not happen through the email body. They happen through attachments that are harder to inspect, like Portable Document Format (PDF) files, ZIP archives, embedded images, or password-protected documents that bypass content inspection.

This often happens because teams assume default scanning covers all formats, or they underestimate how much sensitive data is shared through files instead of text.

How to avoid it:

• Confirm coverage for archives and nested attachments, not just single files
• Ensure policies inspect common business formats like PDFs, spreadsheets, and exports
• Use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) where the tool supports it, especially for scanned PDFs and image-based files
• Decide how to handle encrypted or password-protected attachments, since many policies fail silently there
• Add rules that detect risky attachment patterns, not just data types

What to measure: Look at incidents by attachment type and file category so you can see which formats are slipping through and which ones generate the most noise.

Forgetting Mobile And Byod

Email DLP can look solid in desktop testing, then quietly fall apart when users shift to mobile clients, unmanaged devices, or Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) workflows. Native mail apps, forwarding behavior, and copy-paste patterns can all bypass your intended controls if coverage is not aligned.

This usually happens because rollout teams validate policies in the primary desktop environment and assume the rest will behave the same.

How to avoid it:

• Validate DLP enforcement paths for mobile mail clients, not just web and desktop
• Align mail platform policies with Mobile Device Management (MDM) and Mobile Application Management (MAM) so controls apply consistently
• Define how you will handle unmanaged devices, especially for high-risk roles and shared inbox access
• Restrict or monitor forwarding behavior where it creates repeated leakage risk
• Test policies using real mobile scenarios, including attachments, screenshots, and reply-forward chains

What to measure: Track policy hits and incident rates by device type so you can spot gaps where mobile is under-enforced or over-triggering.

Skipping DMARC Enforcement

This is the mistake that undermines everything because it changes the nature of the risk. If attackers can impersonate your domain or a lookalike, they can push employees or vendors into sending sensitive files outside your DLP rules, because the leak happens through trust and social engineering, not only through technology.

This happens when DMARC stays in monitoring mode too long, or when teams delay enforcement because of Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) alignment issues.

How to avoid it:

• Move DMARC from monitoring to enforcement in stages (none to quarantine to reject) so you reduce spoofing without breaking legitimate streams
• Fix alignment issues early by validating SPF and DKIM across every sending source, including third-party vendors and marketing platforms
• Monitor who is sending on behalf of your domain so legitimate services stay authenticated while abuse gets identified and removed
• Watch for spoofing spikes during migrations and policy changes so you do not mistake transition noise for a stable state

Tools can stop accidental leaks, but domain trust controls stop impersonation-led leaks. PowerDMARC helps teams monitor SPF, DKIM, and DMARC alignment, identify unauthorized senders, and move toward enforcement without disrupting legitimate email streams.

FAQs

1. What are DLP tools?

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) tools help detect and stop sensitive information from being shared outside your organization through channels like email, endpoints, cloud apps, and the web.

2. What is email DLP (email data loss prevention)?

Email DLP is a set of controls that monitors outbound email content and attachments to prevent sensitive data from being sent to the wrong people or outside the organization.

3. How does email DLP work?

It scans email bodies and attachments for sensitive patterns or classifications, then applies actions like warn, block, quarantine, encrypt, or require justification based on policy.

4. Do I need email DLP if I already have an email security gateway (SEG)?

Often, yes. An SEG focuses mainly on inbound threats like phishing and malware, while email DLP focuses on preventing outbound data exposure and mis-sends.

5. How does DMARC relate to email DLP?

Email DLP reduces sensitive data leaving through legitimate accounts, while Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) reduces domain spoofing, which can trick employees or vendors into sending sensitive data outside policy-controlled paths.

6. How much do email DLP tools cost for SMB vs. enterprise?

SMB pricing is usually simpler and lower per user, often bundled into SaaS plans, while enterprise pricing is commonly quote-based and depends on channels covered, policy depth, and the number of users and data locations protected.

• About
• Latest Posts

Ahona Rudra

Domain & Email Security Expert at PowerDMARC

Ahona is the Marketing Manager at PowerDMARC, with 5+ years of experience in writing about cybersecurity topics, specializing in domain and email security. Ahona holds a post-graduation degree in Journalism and Communications, solidifying her career in the security sector since 2019.

Latest posts by Ahona Rudra (see all)

• CSA Requires DMARC for Cyber Essentials Mark Certification - February 10, 2026
• Practical DMARC Deployment for MSPs and Enterprises: What Most Guides Miss - February 9, 2026
• PowerDMARC Now Integrates with Elastic SIEM - February 5, 2026