Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Menlo Secure vs Symantec Endpoint Security comparison

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

Menlo Secure
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (31st), Firewalls (51st), ZTNA (27th), Cloud Security Remediation (7th)
Symantec Endpoint Security
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
144
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (12th)
 

Featured Reviews

Olivier DALOY - PeerSpot reviewer
Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues
The solution should have no impact but it does have a bit of impact on end-users. For example, we encountered some issues in the downloads that took longer than they did without using Menlo. That is clearly not transparent for users. We expected not to have any latency when downloading anything from the internet with Menlo compared to without Menlo. We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution. In other words, we hope to get the same level of protection, while reducing the number of visible bugs, issues, latencies, impacts on performance, et cetera, that we have today with Menlo. We already solved most of them, but we still have too many such instances of issues with Menlo, even though it is protecting us for sure. The weak point of the solution is that it has consumed far too much of my team's time, taking them away from operations and projects and design. It took far too much time to implement it and get rid of all of the live issues that we encountered when our users started using the solution. The good point is that I'm sure it is protecting us and it's probably protecting us more than any other solution, which is something I appreciate a lot as a CISO. But on the other hand, the number of issues reported by the users, and the amount of time that has been necessary for either my team or the infrastructure team to spend diagnosing, troubleshooting, and fixing the issues that we had with the solution was too much. And that doesn't include the need to still use our previous solution, Blue Coat, that we have kept active so that whatever is not compatible or doesn't work with Menlo, can be handled by that other solution. It is far too demanding in terms of effort and workload and even cost, at the end of the day. That is why we decided to transition to another solution. If we had known in the beginning that we would not be able to get rid of Blue Coat, we probably would not have chosen Menlo because we were planning to replace Blue Coat with something that was at least able to do the same and more. We discovered that it was able to do more but it was not able to replace it, which is an issue. It is not only a matter of cost but is also a matter of not being able to reduce the number of partners that you have to deal with. In addition, they could enhance the ability to troubleshoot. Whenever a connection going through Menlo fails for any reason, being able to troubleshoot what the configuration of Menlo should be to allow it through would help, as would knowing what level of additional risk we would be taking with that configuration.
Hakeem_Abdulkareem - PeerSpot reviewer
The solution has given us visibility into compliance within our whole system and helped us ensure everything is updated
Symantec's application security module needs some improvement. You need to create a lot of fingerprints for application security. For instance, let's say I have different brands of ATMs in my environment, like Wincor and NCR. I use GRG to deploy an application control to whitelist some applications. I have to get the exact image of the different models of ATMs. When I tested in the past, some machines would not connect to the server without that. Only the approved software on the ATM should run. Anything outside that should not even come up at all. We did this so that an outside person doesn't introduce malicious software to the ATM. That's the essence of locking down with application control. Using Symantec for application control has been hectic, so I use Carbon Black to do the lockdown. Checking that data security will work fine with Carbon Black. Carbon Black worked fine. Setting up approval in Carbon Black works differently than Symantec. In Symantec, we first need the fingerprints of the applications running underneath. Before setting up Carbon Black, you first install the agent, allowing it to learn the environment. It will analyze all the software's behavior and provide recommendations for what should be allowed. It's more straightforward, whereas configuring application control in Symantec is a bit cumbersome.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."
"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."
"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."
"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."
"Symantec Endpoint Security offers many valuable features, such as file explosion, application learning, DLP, injection detection, and EDR solutions for traffic control."
"Its response time is the most valuable. It is very quick."
"Can detect and prevent attacks that are exploring common software vulnerabilities."
"The solution, especially in older versions, is quite stable."
"The best thing about Symantec is its ability to control our endpoints from a single point. You can manage the antivirus definitions, upgrades, remote scanning, etc., from one console."
"We are using it on 1,600 computers. All the systems and servers are protected with the Symantec solution. Our environment has an uptime of 99.9% because we never had any attack or issue related to viruses. There is zero downtime."
"The anti-virus and firewall policies are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is scalable."
 

Cons

"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."
"The platform itself can be improved as there's no way to track how infections get into the organization."
"Automation of tasks should be improved on SEPM. It is currently manual, and we should be able to automate installation and deployment from the client side."
"I would like to see even more customization, the possibility to do whitelisting. It needs to be a little bit more liberal on whitelisting, even to use the name if needed, instead of hashes."
"It would be perfect if it is capable of detecting or checking ransomware."
"Symantec needs to develop some reporting features and notifications. For instance, if the server is not on or it's shut down. There should also be time-based USB control."
"Every time an OS comes out, I have to upgrade the Symantec product. They don't know how to patch it. If they would produce a patch instead of uninstalling or installing over the current version and rebooting I'd be a lot happier with the product."
"Symantec's application security module needs some improvement. You need to create a lot of fingerprints for application security. For instance, let's say I have different brands of ATMs in my environment, like Wincor and NCR. I use GRG to deploy an application control to whitelist some applications. I have to get the exact image of the different models of ATMs. When I tested in the past, some machines would not connect to the server without that."
"Since the acquisition by Broadcom, we are no longer receiving the proper support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We save a ton of money and time. Previously, the numerous hits that we were receiving from our security tools, prior to implementing them, had to all be chased down, dispositioned, and endpoints had to be reimaged. It was just a ton of effort to do all that. That is where the savings from time and money come in."
"It is appropriately priced for what they're doing for us. Considering the protection provided, I feel their pricing is spot-on."
"The solution is expensive. It's more expensive than the solution I previously used. Compared with the other cloud-based solutions, it's very competitive."
"The pricing is pretty much at the market standard... Symantec is not that cheap and it's not that expensive compared to CrowdStrike. I would put them in the 'middle block.'"
"Its price is fair."
"We have some customers on a one-year license and others on a three-year license."
"One great benefit is we do not need to activate a license for every endpoint. The price is fair."
"The licensing terms can range from subscription-based to perpetual, to annual, to tri-annual."
"Pricing and licensing are important to us when choosing a product."
"I am not sure of the initial cost, but the yearly renewals are quite affordable, which is a good thing. The price seems to have come down in recent years, and with the alternatives that are out there, such as Microsoft Defender, it needs to maintain that affordability to make it attractive."
"Each annual client license is around 1200 or 1600 INR."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Security Remediation solutions are best for your needs.
845,960 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which is better - Cortex XDR or Symantec End-User Endpoint Security?
Aqua Security is easy to use and very manageable. Its main focus is on Kubernetes and Docker. Security is a very valuable feature and their speed of integration is very good. The initial setup was ...
Which offers better endpoint security - Symantec or Microsoft Defender?
We use Symantec because we do not use MS Enterprise products, but in my opinion, Microsoft Defender is a superior solution. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security s...
What do you like most about Symantec End-User Endpoint Security?
Symantec have everything – documentation, videos, data sheets.
 

Also Known As

Menlo Security Web Security, Menlo Web Security
Symantec EPP, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP)
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Audio Visual Dynamics, Red Deer Advocate, Asia Pacific Telecom Co. Ltd., Kibbutz Ein Gedi, and AMETEK, Inc.