Cyberhaven is known for data lineage / DDR: an endpoint agent that follows a data element through its whole life so insider-risk teams get the "where did this come from and everywhere it went" context. It's analytical and investigation-oriented, strongest at the endpoint.
Proofpoint comes from email security and has built one of the more mature cross-channel DLP offerings — its DLP unifies email, cloud, and endpoint, augmented by Insider Threat Management (from its ObserveIT heritage) and recent GenAI-aware DLP capabilities. If your data risk is dominated by outbound email and you want DLP inside a broad information-protection platform, Proofpoint is the incumbent answer.
The honest framing: Cyberhaven is deepest on endpoint lineage; Proofpoint is broadest on channels with email at the core. But both are anchored to their origins — Cyberhaven to the endpoint agent, Proofpoint to email — and neither was designed data-first for the SaaS-at-rest and AI-agent surfaces that now dominate exposure.
Cyberhaven is endpoint-native. Proofpoint is email-native. Strac is data-native — it starts from the sensitive data itself and follows it everywhere it lives or moves, remediating inline. That framing is why Strac closes the multichannel and AI gaps both incumbents leave open.
The full picture of what Strac does:
It depends on your dominant risk. Cyberhaven wins for endpoint data-lineage and insider investigations; Proofpoint wins when email is the primary channel and you want DLP inside a large information-protection suite. If you need enterprise-wide coverage across SaaS, cloud, endpoint, browser, and AI with inline remediation, a data-native platform like Strac addresses more of the surface than either.
Both are credible: Cyberhaven via data lineage, Proofpoint via its ObserveIT-derived Insider Threat Management. Cyberhaven gives richer "how did the data move" context on the endpoint; Proofpoint ties insider signals into a broader email/DLP program. Neither, however, redacts the sensitive content inline — worth noting if remediation, not just detection, is the goal.
Both center on detection and response workflows more than inline content remediation. Proofpoint can block or quarantine (channel-dependent); Cyberhaven is investigation-led. For remediation measured as "the sensitive data is removed at the moment of exposure," evaluate a platform that redacts, masks, or tokenizes in place — that's Strac's model.
Cyberhaven's coverage is limited; Proofpoint has added GenAI-aware DLP capabilities to its cross-channel offering. But native protection for browser prompts across all major AI tools and for AI-agent MCP traffic is where AI-first platforms like Strac lead, since it's the design center rather than an add-on.
Proofpoint has the larger enterprise footprint and channel breadth; Cyberhaven scales as a focused endpoint-lineage layer. For enterprises consolidating onto one data-security platform across SaaS, cloud, endpoint, browser, and AI, Strac is built to be that single layer with remediation and compliance evidence included.
Cyberhaven vs Proofpoint comes down to endpoint-lineage depth versus email-first channel breadth — two strong tools anchored to their origins. Both are thinner where 2026's exposure is concentrating: SaaS data at rest and AI. If you want a platform that is data-native — following the sensitive data across every surface and removing it inline, not just alerting — Strac belongs on the evaluation.
Book a 30-minute demo to see data-native DLP across email, SaaS, endpoint, browser, and AI in one platform.
Related: Cyberhaven competitors · Cyberhaven vs Code42 · best DLP tools · email DLP solutions · AI DLP
.avif){kind=icon}
.gif)
.webp)
