Index › IT › Security operations › Insider risk › Proofpoint Insider Threat Management vs Cyberhaven
Insider risk management · November 2026 Edition
Proofpoint Insider Threat Management vs Cyberhaven
Zero of fourteen models named Proofpoint Insider Threat Management first on the direct prompt; zero named Cyberhaven. Proofpoint Insider Threat Management was named by ten of the fourteen models and Cyberhaven by nine and Proofpoint Insider Threat Management carries 24 labels and Cyberhaven 15, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate21%13%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels2415A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Proofpoint Insider Threat Management · Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Cyberhaven · Teramind vs Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
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.
Proofpoint Insider Threat ManagementFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCyberhaven
Direct002 against Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
Paraphrase202 against Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
Comparative112 against Cyberhaven
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained01
Negative001 against Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
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 Proofpoint Insider Threat Management 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 4.20 | | | | |||
| 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 | | | |
Proofpoint Insider Threat Management Cyberhaven first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management on the left and Cyberhaven on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Proofpoint Insider Threat Management and Cyberhaven stood in it.
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Proofpoint Insider Threat Management, Teramind, Varonis Data Security Platform
Gemini 3.5 FlashCode42 Incydr alternatives: Cyberhaven, DTEX InTERCEPT, Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management
Grok 4.20Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Code42 Incydr, Cyberhaven, Safetica, Teramind
Kimi K2Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: DTEX InTERCEPT, Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Above Security, Code42 alternatives: Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Teramind, eMonitor
Perplexity SonarMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Code42 Incydr, ManageEngine Log360, Teramind
Mistral SmallMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Teramind, Varonis Data Security Platform
DeepSeek V4 FlashMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Above Security, Code42 Incydr, Safetica, Teramind
Llama 4 MaverickMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Above Security, Code42 Incydr, DTEX Systems, Teramind
Qwen 3.7 FlashMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Forcepoint DLP, OSense, Varonis Data Security Platform
GLM 4.7 FlashXMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management alternatives: Safetica Intelligent Data Security Platform, Teramind
MiniMax M2.5Code42 Incydr, Teramind alternatives: Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management
GPT-6 LunaCode42 Incydr alternatives: Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management
Muse Glimmer 30BMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Teramind alternatives: Above Security, DTEX InTERCEPT, Varonis Data Security Platform
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
Level: the same share of first choices.
Proofpoint Insider Threat Management0%#– of 11Cyberhaven0%#– of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Proofpoint Insider Threat Management leads by two points.
Proofpoint Insider Threat Management4%#5 of 13Cyberhaven2%#7 of 13Enterprise
Proofpoint Insider Threat Management leads by six points.
Proofpoint Insider Threat Management6%#4 of 13Cyberhaven0%#10 of 13What the models said about Proofpoint Insider Threat Management
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“some legacy user activity monitoring like Proofpoint ObserveIT” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
“this is typically a custom-quote enterprise solution, which may be pricier” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Enterprise‑grade, expensive, and focused on investigation‑led workflows.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · soft negative
“start with Purview if you're in M365, or Proofpoint/Varonis for enterprise scale” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · first choice
“my default recommendation would be Proofpoint Insider Threat Management” GPT-5.4 mini · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I recommend Proofpoint ObserveIT as your primary choice” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase 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. Three of three in this category shown.
“currently lacks integration breadth and cross-domain behavioral coverage compared to leaders” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · soft negative
“Mid-market solutions (e.g., Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management, Cyberhaven, or DTEX) that balance depth with manageability.” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice
“Cyberhaven for full‑lifecycle data lineage, or Nightfall AI for AI‑native detection with low false positives.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs Proofpoint Insider Threat ManagementMicrosoft Purview Insider Risk Management vs CyberhavenTeramind vs Proofpoint Insider Threat ManagementTeramind vs CyberhavenCode42 Incydr vs Proofpoint Insider Threat ManagementCode42 Incydr vs CyberhavenActivTrak vs Proofpoint Insider Threat ManagementActivTrak vs CyberhavenProofpoint Insider Threat Management vs ApployeProofpoint Insider Threat Management vs DTEX SystemsApploye vs CyberhavenCyberhaven vs DTEX SystemsAll twenty-eight 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.