Keyavi

Name: Keyavi
Brand: Keyavi

AI Native

Protect and control data beyond your network.

Est 2020|Valuation $44M|Raised $58M

LinkedIn 3K|Website|FTEs 16|HQ Denver, Colorado, US

MarketsData Security Platforms

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

- Keyavi and Virtru both describe file- or data-centric protection models. Virtru has a larger visible footprint on review platforms and broader community discussion, which provides more third-party signals. Keyavi emphasizes file-attached policy enforcement and location-based restrictions in vendor materials. - Microsoft Purview is often preferred by organizations standardized on Microsoft 365 for native integration and consolidated administration; however, it may not provide identical post-share persistence across arbitrary storage and transport scenarios depending on deployment. - TeraCryption and other file-centric vendors provide comparable positioning; buyers should compare recipient experience, policy capabilities, key custody, and identity integration.

Market share/adoption trends

No credible market share estimates for Keyavi were found in accessible sources.

	Keyavi	Virtru	Microsoft Purview Message Encryption
Starting Price	Public list pricing not prominent; published per-user pricing available via vendor and channel partner pricing pages (channel-specific)	Published pricing and quote-based packages available from the vendor	Included in certain Microsoft 365/Purview license tiers; availability and cost depend on license tier and Microsoft documentation
Typical use case	File-level controls with post-share policy enforcement and location-based restrictions	Email and file encryption for enterprise collaboration workflows	Native encryption and compliance workflows within Microsoft 365 ecosystem
Noted capabilities	File-attached policies, forensic logs, location-based restrictions (vendor claims)	Broad integrations, established market presence	Tight integration with Exchange/M365 compliance and admin tooling
Known risks / gaps	Limited independent review footprint; public SOC2/ISO evidence not found; public identity integration details limited	Some community feedback relates to pricing and support (sourced independently of Keyavi)	Licensing complexity; may not provide identical post-share controls across all transport/storage scenarios

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Keyavi and Virtru both describe file- or data-centric protection models. Virtru has a larger visible footprint on review platforms and broader community discussion, which provides more third-party signals. Keyavi emphasizes file-attached policy enforcement and location-based restrictions in vendor materials.
Microsoft Purview is often preferred by organizations standardized on Microsoft 365 for native integration and consolidated administration; however, it may not provide identical post-share persistence across arbitrary storage and transport scenarios depending on deployment.
TeraCryption and other file-centric vendors provide comparable positioning; buyers should compare recipient experience, policy capabilities, key custody, and identity integration.

Market share/adoption trends

No credible market share estimates for Keyavi were found in accessible sources.

	Keyavi	Virtru	Microsoft Purview Message Encryption
Starting Price	Public list pricing not prominent; published per-user pricing available via vendor and channel partner pricing pages (channel-specific)	Published pricing and quote-based packages available from the vendor	Included in certain Microsoft 365/Purview license tiers; availability and cost depend on license tier and Microsoft documentation
Typical use case	File-level controls with post-share policy enforcement and location-based restrictions	Email and file encryption for enterprise collaboration workflows	Native encryption and compliance workflows within Microsoft 365 ecosystem
Noted capabilities	File-attached policies, forensic logs, location-based restrictions (vendor claims)	Broad integrations, established market presence	Tight integration with Exchange/M365 compliance and admin tooling
Known risks / gaps	Limited independent review footprint; public SOC2/ISO evidence not found; public identity integration details limited	Some community feedback relates to pricing and support (sourced independently of Keyavi)	Licensing complexity; may not provide identical post-share controls across all transport/storage scenarios