The 10 Best Varonis Alternatives for 2026

These are the best Varonis alternatives to use this year: 

1. PrivaLex
2. Microsoft Purview
3. Netwrix
4. Lepide Data Security Platform
5. SolarWinds Access Rights Manager
6. Cyera
7. BigID
8. Securiti
9. ManageEngine DataSecurity Plus
10. Teramind

Choosing a Varonis alternative is not always about replacing one data security platform with another. Organisations may be looking for better pricing, simpler deployment, stronger cloud coverage, privacy automation or direct support with regulatory compliance.

Varonis is a mature platform with strong capabilities for sensitive data discovery, permissions analysis, access governance and insider threat detection. However, its enterprise focus can make it more complex and expensive than necessary for smaller organisations or companies whose primary objective is achieving GDPR, ISO 27001, NIS2 or DORA compliance.

The right alternative depends on where data is stored, how much technical monitoring the organisation needs and whether the main challenge is security visibility or compliance implementation.

The 10 Best Varonis Alternatives

1. PrivaLex

PrivaLex is a compliance and information security consultancy rather than a data security monitoring platform. It supports organisations that need to implement practical controls, prepare evidence and meet privacy, security and regulatory requirements.

This makes PrivaLex different from platforms that primarily discover data, analyse permissions or monitor user activity. When the main objective is achieving ISO 27001 certification, preparing for NIS2, improving GDPR accountability or creating a defensible compliance programme, the central challenge is often implementation rather than monitoring.

PrivaLex can help organisations define a realistic scope, identify relevant risks, assign control owners and create the documentation required to operate the programme. Companies beginning with ISO 27001 can use this guidance on how to create an ISO 27001 risk assessment to understand how risks should be identified, evaluated and connected to treatment decisions.

The work can also include:

• Defining the information security or privacy management system scope.
• Identifying assets, threats, vulnerabilities and business impacts.
• Selecting appropriate controls.
• Documenting ISO 27001 controls in a way that reflects how the organisation actually operates.
• Creating policies, procedures and records.
• Developing a practical ISO 27001 risk treatment plan.
• Preparing audit evidence.
• Supporting internal reviews and certification preparation.

PrivaLex supports projects involving GDPR, ISO 27001, ISO/IEC 27701, NIS2, ENS, DORA, the EU AI Act, ISO 42001, SOC 2 and HIPAA.

It is especially relevant for companies that already have technical tools but lack a structured compliance programme around them. Varonis, Microsoft Purview or another data security platform may show where access risks exist. PrivaLex can help the organisation decide how those risks should be treated, documented, assigned and demonstrated to an auditor or regulator.

2. Microsoft Purview

Microsoft Purview is Microsoft’s data governance, privacy and compliance platform. It integrates with Microsoft 365, Azure, Teams, SharePoint, Exchange and other services in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Its capabilities include:

• Data discovery and classification.
• Sensitivity labels.
• Data loss prevention.
• Retention and lifecycle management.
• Insider risk management.
• Compliance workflows.
• Information protection across Microsoft services.

For organisations that store most sensitive information in Microsoft 365, Purview can provide strong native integration without introducing another major platform. Its licensing may also be more efficient when the organisation already has the appropriate Microsoft subscription.

The main limitation is its dependency on the Microsoft environment. Organisations with substantial data in non-Microsoft SaaS platforms, cloud databases, legacy infrastructure or multiple cloud providers may need additional tools and integrations.

3. Netwrix

Netwrix provides data security, access governance, auditing and threat detection capabilities for organisations that need visibility across Active Directory, Windows file systems, cloud environments and business applications.

Its capabilities can include:

• Active Directory auditing.
• File activity monitoring.
• Sensitive data discovery.
• Permissions analysis.
• Threat detection.
• Configuration monitoring.
• Compliance reporting.

Netwrix is often considered by mid-sized organisations that need more than basic file auditing but do not want the full complexity of a large enterprise platform.

It may be a better fit when the organisation needs to monitor changes, investigate suspicious activity and understand access rights across a relatively conventional infrastructure. Organisations with advanced cloud data security requirements or highly complex environments may still need broader coverage.

4. Lepide Data Security Platform

Lepide focuses on data security, change auditing, sensitive data classification, insider threat detection and compliance reporting.

It can support environments that include:

• Active Directory.
• Windows file systems.
• Exchange.
• Microsoft 365.
• SQL Server.
• SharePoint.

Lepide’s main advantage is a more accessible implementation model for organisations that do not have a large security department. It can help teams understand who changed, accessed or moved information and identify risks in file-based environments.

Its cloud coverage and behavioural analytics may be less extensive than those of larger platforms. However, for organisations primarily focused on file auditing, permissions and basic compliance reporting, Lepide may provide a more proportionate option.

5. SolarWinds Access Rights Manager

SolarWinds Access Rights Manager focuses on identity and access governance. It helps organisations analyse permissions, identify excessive access and support access reviews across Active Directory, Windows file systems, Microsoft 365 and other directories.

Its use cases include:

• Permission analysis.
• Access certification.
• Group management.
• User lifecycle management.
• Active Directory reporting.
• Remediation of excessive permissions.

SolarWinds ARM is narrower than Varonis. It does not provide the same depth of user behaviour analytics or threat detection, but it may be more appropriate when the main problem is excessive access in Active Directory.

For organisations focused on the principle of least privilege rather than broad data security monitoring, a specialised access rights tool may be easier to operate and less expensive.

6. Cyera

Cyera is a cloud-native data security posture management platform. It is designed for organisations with sensitive information distributed across cloud services, SaaS platforms, data warehouses and cloud databases.

Its capabilities may include:

• Sensitive data discovery.
• Data classification.
• Cloud data mapping.
• Access analysis.
• Risk prioritisation.
• Exposure monitoring.
• Data security posture management.

Cyera may be relevant for cloud-first organisations using services such as AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, Snowflake and multiple SaaS platforms.

Its main limitation is that organisations with extensive legacy infrastructure, on-premises file systems or complex Active Directory environments may need additional tools. It is also primarily a technical security platform, so it does not replace the legal, organisational and documentation work required for regulatory compliance.

7. BigID

BigID combines data discovery and classification with privacy management, data subject rights workflows, processing inventories and privacy risk assessment.

It can support use cases such as:

• Data discovery.
• Sensitive data classification.
• Data mapping.
• Data subject access requests.
• Deletion and correction requests.
• Privacy impact assessments.
• Retention management.
• Privacy risk analysis.

BigID may be more suitable than Varonis when the central issue is operational GDPR compliance rather than insider threat detection.

The platform can help organisations understand where personal data is stored and how it moves across systems. However, organisations still need to define their legal position, assign responsibilities, document decisions and maintain evidence.

8. Securiti

Securiti provides capabilities for data discovery, privacy management, data subject rights, compliance automation and data intelligence.

It may be used for:

• Personal data discovery.
• Data mapping.
• Consent and preference management.
• Data subject rights.
• Privacy assessments.
• Data governance.
• AI-related data oversight.

Securiti may be relevant for organisations managing privacy and AI governance together. It can provide more operational privacy functionality than a platform focused primarily on permissions and security analytics.

Its implementation still requires careful decisions about data ownership, legal bases, retention, access, transparency and the responsibilities of different teams.

9. ManageEngine DataSecurity Plus

ManageEngine DataSecurity Plus is designed for organisations that need file auditing, data classification, permissions analysis and threat detection in Windows environments.

It may support:

• File access auditing.
• File integrity monitoring.
• Data discovery.
• Data classification.
• Permissions analysis.
• Behaviour monitoring.
• Compliance reports.

Its main advantage is accessibility. It may be appropriate for mid-sized organisations that need visibility into Windows file systems without the cost or complexity of a larger enterprise platform.

The trade-off is that it may offer less depth in advanced behavioural analysis, cloud data security and complex multi-platform environments.

10. Teramind

Teramind focuses on employee monitoring, insider threat detection, user behaviour analytics and data loss prevention.

Its capabilities can include:

• Application monitoring.
• Website monitoring.
• Screenshots.
• User activity tracking.
• Data transfer monitoring.
• Productivity analysis.
• Behavioural alerts.
• Insider threat detection.

Teramind differs from Varonis because it focuses more directly on endpoint and employee activity than on data repositories and permissions.

This type of monitoring carries significant privacy and employment law implications in Europe. Organisations must consider transparency, proportionality, data minimisation, employee rights and local labour law before deploying the technology.

What Varonis Does and Where It Has Limitations

Varonis is particularly strong in organisations with sensitive information distributed across Windows file systems, SharePoint, Microsoft 365, Exchange, Active Directory and cloud environments.

Its core capabilities include:

• Sensitive data discovery and classification.
• Permissions analysis.
• Exposure detection.
• Access governance.
• User and Entity Behavior Analytics.
• Insider threat detection.
• Automated remediation.
• Monitoring of suspicious access and data movement.

These capabilities are useful for organisations that need continuous technical visibility across complex environments. They can help security teams identify excessive permissions, exposed files, unusual activity and risky data access.

Security teams should evaluate how monitoring fits into the organisation’s wider control environment. Technical visibility is only one part of a security programme that also depends on documented policies, infrastructure protection, employee responsibilities, supplier controls and reliable evidence.

Measures to protect infrastructure from cyber attacks should therefore be connected with monitoring, access management, incident response and regular control reviews rather than managed as separate activities.

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework is also a useful neutral reference for evaluating how data security tools support broader functions such as identifying, protecting, detecting, responding and recovering.

Varonis may not be the best fit when:

• The organisation does not have a dedicated security team to review alerts and close remediation tasks.
• The data environment is relatively small or straightforward.
• The main objective is certification rather than continuous monitoring.
• The company needs help interpreting European regulatory requirements.
• The total cost of licensing, deployment and operation is disproportionate to the risk.
• The organisation wants a lighter platform focused on a specific use case.

Why Varonis Does Not Fit Every Organisation

Varonis is a strong option for organisations with complex infrastructure, sensitive data and a security team capable of operating the platform continuously.

However, its value depends heavily on the organisation’s ability to use the information it generates.

High total cost

The true cost includes:

• Licensing.
• Deployment.
• Configuration.
• Integrations.
• Training.
• Analyst time.
• Remediation work.
• Ongoing maintenance.
• Internal governance.

For smaller organisations, this may be difficult to justify if the platform addresses only one part of a broader compliance problem.

Requires operational ownership

Data security platforms generate findings that must be reviewed and prioritised. Someone needs to decide which risks matter, assign remediation tasks and verify that the problem has been resolved.

Without clear ownership, the organisation may collect more alerts without reducing risk.

Provides technical visibility rather than complete compliance

A platform can show who accessed a file or whether permissions are excessive. It does not automatically create:

• A legal basis for processing.
• A complete record of processing activities.
• Supplier agreements.
• Risk treatment decisions.
• Policies and procedures.
• Evidence of management review.
• A certification-ready control framework.

Organisations that need both security technology and compliance implementation should evaluate how the two parts will work together. Related privacy work may include GDPR best practices for organisations and a structured GDPR audit.

Limited local regulatory implementation

Frameworks such as NIS2, ENS and DORA require more than technical monitoring. Organisations may need to interpret local requirements, define responsibilities, document governance and prepare evidence for audits or supervisory authorities.

Comparison Table

Option	Main profile	Best for
PrivaLex	Compliance and information security consultancy	Certification, regulatory implementation and auditable controls
Microsoft Purview	Native Microsoft governance	Organisations centred on Microsoft 365
Netwrix	Data security and auditing	Mid-sized companies with Active Directory and compliance needs
Lepide	Auditing and classification	Windows environments with tighter budgets
SolarWinds ARM	Access rights governance	Remediation of excessive Active Directory permissions
Cyera	Cloud-native data security	Cloud-first organisations with distributed data
BigID	Data intelligence and privacy operations	GDPR workflows, data mapping and DSARs
Securiti	Privacy, data intelligence and AI governance	Complex privacy and AI compliance programmes
ManageEngine	Affordable file auditing	Mid-sized Windows environments
Teramind	Employee monitoring and insider threats	User activity and endpoint behaviour detection

What Makes PrivaLex Different

PrivaLex does not compete directly with Varonis because the two options address different problems.

Varonis is software for discovering data risks, analysing access and monitoring activity. PrivaLex works directly with the organisation to turn regulatory requirements into controls, responsibilities, documentation and evidence that can be operated and reviewed.

This difference matters when the organisation already has technical tools but lacks the structure required to demonstrate compliance. A company may know that permissions are excessive or that sensitive information is not properly classified, but still need support to decide:

• Which risks require treatment first.
• Who owns each control.
• What policies and procedures are necessary.
• What records should be maintained.
• How evidence should be collected.
• How technical findings should be connected to management decisions.
• How the programme should be prepared for an audit.

PrivaLex can support organisations from the beginning of a compliance project. This may include defining the scope, identifying applicable requirements, reviewing existing controls, prioritising risks and developing an implementation roadmap.

For startups and smaller companies, the approach can be particularly useful. Organisations preparing for their first certification can review this guidance on ISO 27001 certification for startups in the EU before deciding which controls, policies and records they need.

PrivaLex can also support more mature organisations that already use platforms such as Varonis, Microsoft Purview or another security solution. The consultancy can help connect technical findings to the wider compliance programme, including:

• Risk treatment.
• Control ownership.
• Audit evidence.
• Supplier governance.
• Incident response.
• Management reporting.
• Privacy accountability.

Organisations managing multiple European requirements may also need to understand how NIS2 and DORA interact and where shared controls can reduce duplicated work.

The result is not simply another dashboard. It is a compliance programme with defined responsibilities, documented decisions and evidence that can be reviewed by management, customers, auditors or regulators.

6 Criteria for Choosing Between Varonis Alternatives

1. Where does the data actually live?

Start by mapping the organisation’s real data environment.

Consider whether sensitive information is stored mainly in:

• Windows file systems.
• Active Directory.
• Microsoft 365.
• SaaS platforms.
• Cloud data warehouses.
• Databases.
• Endpoints.
• On-premises infrastructure.
• Multiple cloud environments.

Varonis is particularly strong in complex Microsoft and hybrid environments. A cloud-native platform may be more appropriate for organisations with distributed SaaS and cloud data. Microsoft Purview may provide better integration when most data already sits inside Microsoft services.

2. Is the primary problem technical or regulatory?

Data security and regulatory compliance are related but different objectives.

A technical platform may help identify:

• Excessive permissions.
• Unusual access.
• Exposed files.
• Sensitive data locations.
• Suspicious transfers.
• Weak access controls.

Compliance also requires legal interpretation, organisational responsibilities, policies, contracts, risk assessments and evidence. Organisations scaling their SaaS operations should also consider the privacy risks that SaaS companies often overlook.

If the main driver is certification or regulatory readiness, direct implementation support may deliver more value than adding another monitoring platform.

3. Does the organisation have a team to operate the platform?

Every platform needs an owner.

Before selecting a tool, identify:

• Who will configure it.
• Who will review alerts.
• Who will prioritise findings.
• Who will approve remediation.
• Who will manage integrations.
• Who will produce reports.
• Who will maintain the system after deployment.

If there is no internal security or compliance owner, the organisation may need a consultancy-led approach or a simpler platform with a narrower operating model.

The organisation should also define its broader risk assessment process before choosing software. Otherwise, the platform may produce findings without a consistent way to evaluate or treat them.

4. Can the tool produce usable evidence?

A platform should not only identify problems. It should help the organisation demonstrate what happened and how the risk was addressed.

Evaluate whether the tool can provide:

• Audit logs.
• Access review records.
• Remediation history.
• Reports showing control operation.
• Evidence of review and approval.
• Exportable records.
• Timestamps and responsible owners.
• Evidence that can be connected to specific requirements.

For information security certification, ISO/IEC 27001 provides a recognised management system framework. Organisations can consult the official ISO/IEC 27001 overview when assessing how their technology supports governance and continual improvement.

5. Which regulatory framework has priority?

The required framework will influence the right solution.

A GDPR-focused organisation may prioritise data mapping, DSAR workflows, retention and privacy assessments. A company preparing for NIS2 may need stronger governance, incident management, supply chain controls and evidence of security measures.

Companies operating in Spain should also consider the developing national context around the transposition of NIS2 in Spain.

For SaaS businesses, the relationship between cloud operations and security obligations is particularly important. This overview of NIS2 compliance for SaaS companies can help identify areas that may require more than technical monitoring.

Organisations preparing for an audit should also review how to prepare for a NIS2 audit and what evidence may be expected.

6. What is the complete budget?

Do not compare platforms using the annual licence alone.

Calculate:

• Licence fees.
• Implementation.
• Configuration.
• Integrations.
• Training.
• Internal analyst hours.
• Remediation work.
• Vendor support.
• Ongoing maintenance.
• Audit and certification costs.

A platform may be the right long-term investment for a mature security programme. A defined consultancy project may be more efficient for an organisation that needs to reach a particular certification or compliance outcome.

How to Validate Your Varonis Alternative Shortlist

1. Define the outcome before comparing tools

Decide what the organisation needs to achieve:

• Reduce excessive permissions.
• Monitor sensitive data.
• Detect insider threats.
• Improve cloud visibility.
• Prepare for certification.
• Demonstrate GDPR or NIS2 compliance.

This prevents the selection process from becoming a comparison of feature lists without a clear business objective.

2. Test how findings become actions

Ask how the platform handles a real finding. Can it assign an owner, prioritise the risk, create a remediation task and record whether the issue was resolved?

A useful solution should connect technical findings to documented decisions and evidence. Otherwise, it may create more alerts without improving the organisation’s security position.

3. Confirm who will operate the system

Identify who will configure the platform, review alerts, approve remediation and maintain integrations. Also define how responsibilities will be covered during holidays, staff changes or incidents.

The operating model should include employee responsibilities and awareness. Organisations subject to NIS2 may also need a structured approach to employee training and security awareness.

4. Review privacy, processing and monitoring implications

Before deployment, confirm where data and metadata are processed, which subprocessors are involved and how long records are retained.

This is especially important when monitoring employee activity, analysing access patterns or processing information that may reveal sensitive personal details. The organisation should document proportionality, transparency and access restrictions before enabling monitoring features.

5. Validate incident and evidence workflows

The platform should support the organisation’s response process rather than operate as an isolated security dashboard.

Check whether it can provide timestamps, investigation records, remediation history and exportable evidence. It should also fit into the organisation’s breach response process, including the steps covered in this GDPR data breach response template.

6. Compare the full operating model

The final decision should consider more than the licence price. Compare implementation, integrations, configuration, training, internal staff time, vendor support, remediation work and ongoing maintenance.

A less expensive platform may still become costly if it requires extensive administration. Conversely, a consultancy-led approach may be more efficient when the immediate objective is to implement controls, prepare evidence or achieve certification.

Conclusion

The best Varonis alternative depends on the organisation’s actual problem.

Microsoft Purview may be suitable for companies operating mainly in Microsoft 365. Netwrix, Lepide or ManageEngine may provide more accessible auditing and permissions management. Cyera may be better suited to cloud-first environments, while BigID and Securiti may be more relevant for privacy operations and data intelligence.

PrivaLex is different because it supports the implementation of the compliance programme itself. It can help organisations define scope, assess risks, implement controls, assign responsibilities and prepare evidence for certification or regulatory review.

The most important selection criterion is not which option has the longest feature list. It is whether the solution can be operated by the organisation, address its highest-priority risks and produce evidence that supports real security and compliance outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)