Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

The feature I find most useful is the console for reporting.

The overall quality of the product needs to be improved because with the last session we had several issues with new versions. Also, the solution needs better protections.

The new version is not very stable with the latest version of Windows 10. We got a lot of crashes with this solution. 

We have about 1000 users.

It's very easy to scale.

I'm pretty satisfied with technical support.

The initial setup was quite complex. Even though it was complex, I was satisfied with the setup.

We used an integrator to implement the solution. 

We are using a pretty old solution for Symantec, so I would say the product is not quite up to date with new threats. Look for a new model of the solution. There is a new version, for example, that we don't use yet. Or you can look for a better solution for current threats.

I would rate this solution seven out of 10.

I am working as an endpoint security consultant. I'm not only working on Symantec. I also work with Kaspersky, McAfee, and all other vendors. I found Symantec is the best.

Symantec is top of all of the antivirus tools. I couldn't find any single incident that happened. Symantec was not the leader previously, McAfee and Kaspersky were. This is a new game.

In Symantec Endpoint Protection, the most valuable feature I like is the good performance.

With Symantec, I always know this tool will be reliable and with the latest protection.

The device control level and application control level should improve. I am finding a lot of issues when I block the devices, like a printer or scanner. 

In the classes of the devices for the application control, the most important issue is the hashing. Nowadays all the vendors, like Cisco firewalls, are detecting threats with the hashes. 

Symantec has this option that we can block them always by the hashes but the problem is that sometimes Symantec detects these hashes and is not consistent. These two parts should improve. The rest is always awesome. These two parts are very critical because I found a problem in application and device control.

Symantec Endpoint has a perfect agent. It's going to be how many agents you can combine in resources. In the new releases, if they create a single agent to improve the control incrementally, it would be better.

If you want to deploy ATP, you should have a separate event. You have to install separate events. With Symantec Endpoint Protection, any other protection should be installed, then configure the warnings. It does not ask for any new agent to install on the client machine. 

A single agent is enough. Symantec will get a lot of popular support from the industry because people don't like to install agents. For the ATP, you have to install separate events. For the Endpoint, you have to install separate events. If you install all the separate events, it is a huge load on a Windows machine. People start complaining.

If Symantec wants to improve, they should have a single event for all their products, like ATP, DLP, and Endpoint Protection.

I have been using Symantec since 2007. I didn't have any issues regarding even the updates and the migration to the new version. I didn't have any problems, but with the other vendors, I found a lot of problems.

On Windows, this is very fine and perfect, but for the Linux it needs improvement. Whenever I install it on Linux, I found a lot of problems. Even on the Mac as well. 

Kaspersky has Android support as well, but in Symantec, they still don't have support for Android. You should have Mac and Android device support too. 

The Endpoint solution should have support for all types of devices. Symantec has only Windows support (which is the very best), but for the Mac, I found some errors.

It should improve Mac and Android support like Windows device support. The protection of Windows level support is very tight and strong.

The technical support is also very good. Any time that I open a case with them, they have three types of support levels. If I put it on two, immediately they call me, or if nobody is online, there are the chat agents.

You can start and use the chat for support. The support is very good. But Kaspersky has 24-hour support. You cannot stop your business continuity. We can't tell the people they will come online later. Other than this case, Symantec is very good.

The initial setup is straightforward, not complex. For me, it's very easy.

In my personal experience, most people use Symantec. In my whole life, I couldn't find any problems with Symantec. In the ransomware protection, though, I found many issues. 

Many people were having infections but the virus sometimes was not detected. Even the Kaspersky software could not detect it, but if I install Symantec on any client I couldn't find the ransomware. The problem is Symantec is more expensive than other vendors. Kaspersky is in comparison very cheap.

If you are working in an organization and you have 10,000 users, if you compare Symantec with the other vendors you will find only a small difference in the price.

I always tell people if you have a budget, if you have money, if you need stability, go with Symantec. If you think that your data is sensitive, you can not worry about the money.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Symantec Endpoint Protection a nine.

Our primary use for this solution is for antivirus, website protection, and malware protection.

The most valuable feature for our organization is the antivirus, as our staff is the target of zero-day malware and viruses.

Better communication and coordination with Microsoft would help to prevent delays that are frequent when operating system updates are released. As it is now, when a new build from Microsoft comes out, we get warnings to say that certain applications are not compatible. We sometimes just have to wait until a new version of this solution is released in order for it to work properly. One of the problems is that Microsoft releases updates often, and sometimes they don't tell anybody. This can lead to the whole configuration being corrupted.

I would like to see a hybrid version of this solution that covers both in-house and cloud-based servers. 

This solution is very stable. It is "install and forget".

Once you install the solution on the server, it is very quick when it comes to updating the clients. Specifically, it sends packages really quickly to all of the clients to ensure that they have the latest build. It is transparent and quick.

This solution is constantly in use. It runs 24/7.

We have between sixty and seventy people, both IT and non-IT staff, who use this solution. The latter are primarily working in Microsoft Office and SharePoint environments.

The technical support is ok. You create a ticket and depending on what the issue is, and whether it is an emergency, they give it a level such as one, two, or three. After this, they take action and they are pretty good.

Most of the solutions to things like installation issues or other incompatibilities, they are quick on creating "How to" pages in their help.  

My understanding is that we were running Kaspersky before this solution was implemented, but I was not here at the time.

The initial setup is straightforward. Also, we have just updated, and the installation over the top of the old one was perfect. It saved all of the data that we had configured from the beginning, did a backup, installed the new version, and deleted the only one. It was good and simple.

The deployment takes approximately one hour, and one person can handle both deployment and maintenance.

We performed the installation in-house.

This solution protects us and we do not get any viruses, so this can be considered the return on our investment.

We receive a discounted price for this solution because we are a non-profit organization. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

I was not at this company when the solution was selected.

My advice for anybody implementing this solution is to consider the rules that you want to define. Installation is straightforward, but you can make it simple, or you can make it pretty complex.

For example, you can set up specific groups for in-house or external users. You can also install clients that only touch base occasionally, such as logging into the internal environment once per year. It can also be used on Virtual Machines, where the client's resources are limited or restricted. In a hosted environment, it does not have to be installed on the individual VMs. It can run on the host and it will scan everything.

There is also a cloud version of this product out now, which covers people who are more cloud-based.

So far, I find that this product works pretty good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

SEP was used mainly to protect desktops/laptops of students, faculty, and staff (about thirty-five hundred in total).

Symantec was also used as messaging Gateway for email filtering (moved to Office 365).

SEP was very useful for protecting devices that belonged to students, faculty, and staff. However, it was a source of problems for some users, as some services/apps in their devices were blocked/frozen.

The most valuable feature is the virus and malware detection capability.

This solution needs better compatibility with services and applications.

We are using this solution for endpoint protection.

This solution has helped us because it is really useful for blocking all kinds of viruses.

The support for virus checking in containers is very useful.

We have also created policies to assist with blocking evasive applications.

We are also using the Symantec Messaging Gateway.

If we install a client's software in our location, such as Microsoft Office or Adobe reader, we would like to have these endpoints protected.

The solution is stable.

We have had some little issues and file problems when we are logging the calls through the technical team.

Sometimes, when we are creating a new policy, some of the clients are not being updated with the latest policy.

We have approximately one thousand users with this solution.

Technical support for this solution is good. We speak to the technical support team directly.

I started with the company after this solution was implemented.

The initial setup for this solution is easy. Not a problem.

Our deployment took less than fifteen minutes, and a single engineer is enough for the maintenance.

The Symantec technical team handled the implementation for us.

The licensing is calculated on a monthly basis, but we use a three-year renewal. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

They did evaluate other solutions including Sophos, ESET, McAfee, and Kaspersky. We did not find these as user-friendly.

The support is very good. It is easy to manage all of the clients and deploy new policies.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

My primary use case is endpoint antivirus/antimalware security on Windows computers, on and off my office network.

Initially, it provided easy centralized management of policies and devices. Threat protection has always worked well.

I originally posted the most valuable feature is centralized management - after consideration, I realized this is not accurate. I've used the on-premise and cloud versions of SEP.  I prefer cloud versions as it is centralized and easy to manage, but every cloud-managed solution does this. I have many cloud managed solutions I use, but I've found SEP to be quirky and inefficient at best. My personal experience is the protection works well. I haven't had an infected computer in years (managing 300 devices now, more over the years). The problem with the protection is I've encountered far too many computers where the licensing fails at some point after installation without warning or notice. You have to check each computer routinely to verify the license is good and the agent is updating. This directly impacts the core reliability of the product since license "expiration" (failure) prevents the agent from updating.

This latest version upgrade/migration over the last year has been atrocious.

There have been numerous support issues and calls with Sr. VPs at Symantec, who were always understanding about the problems, but the product has proven unreliable to install and manage. The protection itself seems as solid, but if devices are losing their licensing without notice for no reason, it's only a matter of time before they become compromised.

The bottom line is that when it comes to management, reliability of management, reporting, alerting, installation, and licensing, if these don't work reliably you can't trust the product's security capability.

I've seen way too many outages and "maintenance" events in the last year on the new platform to consider it stable.

This latest version has proven unreliable for management and installation.

I would no longer recommend this product as a viable security solution.

We are a partner or distributor of Symantec Endpoint Protection. We use this solution for antivirus and cyber threat protection. Internally, we are using it to ensure that we receive security against all known attack vectors with efficacy, cyber defense at scale, high-performance client, and on-premises management architecture.

Endpoint Protection has improved our operations by protecting our servers from potential cyber threats.

The solution offers a Device Control policy to block all USB thumb drives and all USB hard drives. We use this feature for some areas here in the company and it's been great for us because these areas contain very important information and we are doing everything we can to avoid breaches, data theft, and data leaks.

We must have complete dissolution with advance care protection but we are finding out that we need more Symantec technical specialists. We have identified a need to hire at least one more technical specialist familiar with Symantec to improve our solutions capabilities.

Additionally, an endpoint detection response feature would be great but not with an additional license, it should be included as an additional feature. We have identified this as a solution that our customers are very interested in, but they don't want to purchase additional subscriptions.

The stability is great.

The scalability of the solution is great.

Currently, we have around 400 employees using this solution.

We haven't used their technical support. We receive support directly from Symantec here in Mexico and they are pretty responsive.

There were difficulties at the beginning with the setup. I wasn't directly involved with the initial setup but from what I heard, from the IT department, is that they encountered issues when attempting to create differentials between the principle, directors, and manager groups.

The deployment and improvements took two months to implement because we have branch offices all over the place.

Deployment required three people and support only requires one person; the IT manager.

Compared to other products and brands here in Mexico, the price is okay, somewhere in the middle. Our solution is unique in that it can adapt to a variety of pricing and licensing constraints considering we have the corporate, government, and academic mandates. The account managers here in Mexico always give us support in the form of applicable discounts and adjustments.

The management console is great. We only have only one person managing and controlling the console. It seems to be very user-friendly.

On a scale of one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best, I would rate this product a nine. To make it a ten, it should be free. The cost is restrictive to some degree.

We work with Symantec DLP and Endpoint Protection as our main security solutions. We have deployed Endpoint Protection for a few customers and for our own organization as a test: Endpoint Protection, Email Security, and DLP.

We are a partner but we are a user as well. Our company has more than 100 employees and our group, which is made up of different companies, has more than 400 employees, and we are planning to deploy it for our group. Our company is the system integrator, while other companies within the group are service providers or different types of service integrators for areas like fintech.

It has improved our productivity and, from a security point of view, we feel safe from spam. For endpoint protection, we are not facing problems now.

I cannot say the stability is excellent, but it is very good.

Scalability, of course, is good. They acquire different companies sometimes and they adapt their different technologies.

We get good support from Symantec. We find that during integration, if we face any problems, we get a good response from the OEM and we solve them very quickly. Technical support is very good, they have a toll-free number.

We didn't have anything at this scale. We just used Kaspersky as an antivirus, but we are not using it now, we are using Symantec Endpoint Protection which covers everything. Symantec is better, it covers more requirements. Antivirus solutions only cover some basics, but Endpoint Protection is the next generation. It covers antivirus, spamware, ransomware; all this is covered through Endpoint Protection.

We selected Symantec because it is at the top of industry reviews. We also know that globally, Symantec spends a lot of money for R&D and we believe it will remain up to the mark.

We also use Symantec Email Security which improves our productivity and protects our valuable data. Email Isolation is the only feature which the others don't have. When we use it we find that we are free from phishing mail, etc.

The setup was straightforward. It takes very little time. It's not that complex.

I have not actually done an ROI calculation, but from what I understand, considering the cost and complexity and the technical support and deployment, if I consider all these things, the return on investment is good.

Pricing and licensing for our country is very good. It's not that expensive and the endpoint security is very good. It's not as cheap as some others, but they are not as good.

 We are evaluating Imperva, as we have some customer requests to do a PoC on that, as well as other product like F5 and A10. We have the PoC boxes for A10 for load-balancing and DDoS. We also have some NGFWs, like Check Point - we are doing a PoC and testing it as a firewall and as endpoint protection. CyberArk is another among the products we are focusing on for our customers.

Our market is very aware of Symantec, A10, and F5. F5 is predominant and, obviously, there is Cisco as well, which is a dominant company from a firewall point of view. We don't push all of their security products, like FirePower etc., because we understand that they are not a leader for firewalls. Palo Alto, Check Point, and Fortinet have been leaders in the last few years. 

But we are focusing on Check Point and Palo Alto. They are slowly growing and customers are buying their NGFWs and their endpoint protection or some other security product they have, for double-protection.

Since we have done two very successful PoCs, one live PoC for my largest customer, which is in government, and another for a private company, I recommend that other customers take the Symantec solution as their main security: I prefer Endpoint, Email Security, and DLP. Symantec has other solutions which I don't prefer. They have network analyzers and WAF but I prefer the Imperva WAF, which is better.

In our company, most of the 100 people are using this solution and their roles range from management to normal end-user. We have three staff, maximum, for maintenance, and their roles are IT administrator, and system managers. We do plan to increase our usage.

I would rate this product at eight out of ten, based on the technical support, cost, and their local presence as well.