No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Malwarebytes Teams vs Symantec Endpoint Security Complete comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 15, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
122
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (5th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (3rd), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Malwarebytes Teams
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Symantec Endpoint Security ...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
40th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.8%, up from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Malwarebytes Teams is 1.5%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Symantec Endpoint Security Complete is 0.7%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.8%
Malwarebytes Teams1.5%
Symantec Endpoint Security Complete0.7%
Other94.0%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
reviewer2594097 - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Executive Officer at a wholesaler/distributor with 11-50 employees
Exceptional malware protection with regular updates and behavior-based detection
There are no built-in backups or integrated backup options, which could be an opportunity. The free version is effective, however, the paid version is pricey compared to it. Other customers have mentioned issues with false positives. It lacks enterprise-level management and more enterprise functionality. CrowdStrike and SentinelOne are much more enterprise-grade solutions. Malwarebytes has limited integration with cybersecurity tools and lacks enterprise integrations because it is not an enterprise product.
PetriRajama - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead of IT at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Has provided strong security foundations but struggles with integration and ongoing compatibility issues
It had its problems. They were rebuilding it while having the old functionality and new functionality layered on top of each other. They were migrating the functionalities to the new solution, which caused significant problems. The mobile device management was not unified with the other endpoint management, creating structural issues.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The product is mostly automated, and we do not have to make decisions, because all the decisions are made by the product itself and we are not required to create any custom policies since the policies that are created are well defined in the product itself."
"The tool's use cases are relevant to security."
"The tool is easy to use."
"The stability is pretty good except for one or two cases, and based on the performance, it's been okay with pretty high performance, no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze."
"Cortex XDR alerts us on the dashboard when there's a threat, which allows us to restrict that user and helps secure our infrastructure."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We have about 100 users on it right now, and we use it twice a week."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks has helped lighten the load of our security analysts because it was the major tool that we were using and the one we utilized most."
"Cortex XDR features advanced threat detection capabilities."
"It is intuitive and easy to use, and for the most part, it does a good job of catching things and is good at stopping stuff."
"The dashboard actually is good and it is simple."
"It's very versatile and thorough."
"The platform is straightforward to install."
"It is intuitive and easy to use. For the most part, it does a good job of catching things. It is good at stopping stuff. I did a couple of tests with a password cracker. I tried to load that on, and Malwarebytes didn't let me do that, which was pretty good. It has a rollback feature that I haven't seen with any other company. If one of your endpoints are hit with mass ransomware, you could actually roll it back. I watched a demo of them do that, and it was pretty sweet."
"It comprehensively finds and removes malicious software."
"From our experience, it provides 100% visibility and detects hundreds of infections."
"The most valuable features of Malwarebytes are the agents, user experience, efficiency of the findings, and MDR features."
"The solution prevents any damage from viruses and provides risk mitigation for virus threats."
"In reference to zero-day attacks, we immediately get signatures from the Symantec site. That is good."
"It protects emails and messages shared between users."
"The feature I like the most is the Adaptive Protection... And it does not negatively affect users' activities because we can adapt it and allow binaries that are executed regularly, while forbidding those that are not executed within the company."
"With this solution, we haven't had any attacks, every malicious activity is blocked and monitored, and we can integrate it with our SIEM to efficiently manage and monitor all activity."
"The solution's most important feature is its reliability. It is not heavy on the workstation."
"I like that Symantec can update directories."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the advanced rate firewall protection, the URL filtering."
 

Cons

"However, if you do not have Palo Alto in your environment, you are paying these additional services just for Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, so it is not a cost-effective solution."
"There are some false positives. What our guys would have liked is that it would have been easier to manipulate as soon as they found a false positive that they knew was a false positive. How to do so was not obvious. Some people complained about it. The interface, the ESM, is not user-friendly."
"It is a complex solution to implement."
"The setup is quite easy. We had appropriate support from the manager. One thing that was missing was the integration part."
"It automatically detects security issues. It should be able to protect our network devices while operating autonomously."
"It would be good if they could make an exception for applications. Sometimes, it can be a bit of a challenge to make exceptions for certain applications that have been used as rogue."
"It is an enterprise-level solution. Its price could be less expensive."
"In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by proving hard disk encryption. If it could support this it would be a complete solution."
"The free version is effective, however, the paid version is pricey compared to it."
"This solution reports far too many false positives!"
"I would like to see integration with other vendors going forward."
"Strictly in terms of cyber security, the release cycle should be quarterly, at most. It shouldn't be more frequent than that because, for one thing, keeping up with tech support is difficult."
"We have noticed that when the solution is doing the scanning, all the scanning activities make the device heavier. It slows down your machine."
"It's not good in search hunting."
"There's no indication on the system as to when the software is doing a scan."
"In my opinion, it's not very scalable, at least the way we use it at this point in time."
"Symantec Endpoint Security Complete does not cover everything on the cloud. It does not cover the workstation emails. There are risks associated with it."
"Enhancements in malware analysis and behavior detection would be beneficial."
"The solution's support is not available over the weekends. We also need to have the DLP, endpoint security, and encryption integrated into one agent."
"Any traffic coming through should be recognized whether it is a legitimate URL or not."
"Symantec could have better support for iOS and Android mobile devices."
"The product isn't stable at all. New issues and bugs are introduced with new releases, which has been happening for the past three years."
"The Threat Defense for Active Directory feature has a problem in that it is not possible to deploy it within a hybrid management architecture... we would have to migrate all the infrastructure to be managed by the cloud to deploy this feature, so we have not deployed it."
"The deployment of Symantec components could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to CrowdStrike, Cortex XDR is an expensive solution."
"It has reasonable pricing for the use cases it provides to the company."
"I don't like that they have different types of licenses."
"The return on investment is from the user side because we have seen the performance of it increase the delivery time of the product if we are using too many web-based and on-premise applications. In indirect ways, we saw the return of investment in terms of performance and user satisfaction increase."
"If one wishes to work with another team or large number of users at a future point, he must purchase a license for them."
"The price is on the higher side, but it's okay."
"Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance."
"Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is an expensive solution."
"I believe the retail price is between $40 and $50 per copy."
"I rate the tool's pricing a five out of ten."
"The platform pricing is competitive with other antivirus products."
"We expect to pay $1,000 USD a month, depending on the number of users."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price and ten is a high price, I rate the product's pricing a seven."
"Yearly, it is around $50 per client."
"It is expensive."
"The cost may be something in the ballpark of $20-25 a year per computer."
"It's cost-effective and well-suited for smaller to midrange companies."
"In terms of costs, Symantec Endpoint Security Complete has become costlier compared to how much it was in the past. The cost of the product is very high now. The customer needs to pay extra for additional features, but not for technical support. For example, if you need an email gateway or if you are looking for URL filtering, you have to pay extra, and that's where the costs for Symantec Endpoint Security Complete become higher."
"The pricing is good. It's good value for the money."
"Symantec Endpoint Security Complete is not expensive."
"License renewal is not a straightforward process. I have a three-year subscription. It takes a long time to renew the license after three years. It is not proactive on that. The solution is expensive for the coverage that it does. I have to include other products to complement the protection that Symantec Endpoint Security Complete does not cover. We have to pay 18 euros. There are no additional support or maintenance costs."
"I'm recommending going with three-year licensing, rather than the yearly licensing option for this product."
"The product's pricing is dependent on partnership levels. The solution's price is competitive compared to other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business50
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise57
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Malwarebytes?
I really hate the automatic rebilling without officially confirming it with me. It's an annoyance and they should at ...
What needs improvement with Malwarebytes?
It takes up too much space when it's trying to run in the background.
What is your primary use case for Malwarebytes?
My primary use case is that it's protecting me against malware.
What needs improvement with Symantec Endpoint Security Complete?
It had its problems. They were rebuilding it while having the old functionality and new functionality layered on top ...
What is your primary use case for Symantec Endpoint Security Complete?
It's the network side of things. They have the Fortinet SASE network protection, which is ideal for us because most o...
What advice do you have for others considering Symantec Endpoint Security Complete?
I have worked with this solution. From a security perspective, my understanding is that it remains in the top five so...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Knutson Construction
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Malwarebytes Teams vs. Symantec Endpoint Security Complete and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.