Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

The main use case is to scan vulnerabilities on our endpoints. We need to make sure that our antivirus software is up to date. We need to ensure that patches on our workstations are up to date and that we can scan through folders and files to detect malware.

It's very good. Most of the clients are using this solution. It's able to protect workstations from threats, malicious files, and malicious USB drives. It's able to protect business-related files on the workstations. If you have an environment where you need to protect critical files from threats, it's a good solution.

It also defends us against the latest sophisticated attacks, such as key-finding attacks and spyware. It provides protection against threats, spyware, ransomware, malware, etc. It's pretty good at that.

It provides a single pane of glass. You can see everything through the dashboard. It's pretty good.

It has improved our security posture. It protects us from attacks outside, and it protects our files. It also prevents the corruption of files and secures our critical business-related files.

Symantec Endpoint Security is easy to use, fast, and good for small and medium-sized businesses.

Unlike other AV products, such as Norton, Symantec Endpoint Security doesn't use many system resources.

Its GUI needs improvement. It's good, but it needs to be improved in terms of management and reporting. Its reporting features aren't straightforward.

We've been using the solution for around five years. 

It's stable.

It's scalable. One of the clients has 50 users and another one has 10 users. It's good and pretty fast. It's being used at multiple locations.

It's very easy to increase the number of endpoints. You just need to purchase more licenses. If you have more users, you need more licenses.

We have plans to increase its usage.

I'd rate them an eight out of ten. We had to raise an issue only once, and it was resolved within hours.

We have other endpoint security solutions. We bid for many companies. We check what the client wants to achieve, and we also take the price into consideration

Generally, Symantec can provide all the features that our clients commonly require. Its price is also good compared to other solutions such as Cisco AMP. Cisco AMP is very expensive. We only deploy it at the airports.

We have different test cases to show how effective it's against different types of malware, corrupt files, malicious files, etc. It works pretty well. We are happy with it. It's able to detect and stop all types of malware. We also tested it to see how it treats benign files, and it works pretty well.

It's simple to install. Its deployment is easy. It takes two to five hours. You need an antivirus server. You can directly download the antivirus client on your PC from there and then you just click next, next, and next to install it. 

We have seen an ROI. Based on the service that you get in return, it's definitely worth the money. 

It's pretty awesome price-wise. That's why we give it to most of our clients. It isn't very expensive.

Compared to Cisco AMP, which is very expensive, its price is okay. It's also cheaper than Malwarebytes.

The license that you purchase lasts a period of time. After that, you again need to purchase another license. Otherwise, you will not be able to get support from Symantec every time you have issues.

I've not used it on mobile devices, but on workstations, it's awesome. You don't require any other antivirus solution. It's simple to install. It works very well in the Windows environment. You don't need to install anything else. It provides any type of endpoint security, including USB protection.

If you have a critical network environment and security is very important to you, you can consider this solution. It can offer you the level of security that you need. It can provide what you are looking for in terms of endpoint protection.

It's very good for a small or medium organization. If you have a very large environment, you can consider other alternatives, but for small environments with 50 users, it works very well. For bigger environments, such as airports, we use Cisco AMP.

It hasn't as such saved time when responding to issues. Sometimes we have issues where the user isn't able to use the system until we resolve the issue. We have had cases where the issue got resolved immediately, but sometimes, we have had issues that required opening a case with them or intervention from the administrator.

Overall, I'd rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

Our client uses Endpoint Security at a school for antivirus protection. For example, if someone plugs in a USB on a classroom computer, Endpoint Security protects the network from infection. We have around 35 classrooms and eight teachers per class, so that's about 280 people.

The school does not use Endpoint Security to its full potential. The use case is basic. For example, it isn't being used to block stealth techniques. Sophos Firewall handles those kinds of attacks. Active Directory isn't used in the classroom, so the ability to block an AD takeover isn't being used. 

We haven't eliminated any other security solutions by adopting Endpoint Security, but we are trying to consolidate our solutions by installing a new FortiGate firewall and client licenses of FortiClient.

Endpoint Security provides the school with fundamental protection against viruses and other malware. It only covers traditional endpoints, not mobile devices, but we've never had any outbreaks. 

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. 

In four years, we had no reason to switch solutions, but lately, we've found that Symantec is slowing down the machines. They are looking to change solutions. I would like to stop the Endpoint Security Client's scan when the device boots. It slows the machine a lot. The scan should only run when the machine is idle. The scan often happens when the machine is at its peak load. 

I would also like Symantec to add ransomware protection. If a machine is infected by ransomware, it's hard to recover the data. We don't have any data on the client, so we're not overly concerned about that. Still, it would be nice to have this feature if there are any future problems. 

My client has been using Endpoint Security for two or three years.

Endpoint Security is stable. 

Endpoint Security is a scalable tool. 

I rate Symantec support a nine out of ten. I only had to contact them once in ten years, and the support was excellent. They solved the problem in ten minutes.

Positive

We're looking at other solutions. We mainly want something that doesn't experience performance degradation during scans or updates. 

I started to work with this client two years after implementation. I have been managing the solution for a year and a half. I provide them with renewals and updates when necessary. It doesn't require much maintenance. I didn't have to visit the premises this year.

The price of Symantec is on the higher end. They face some competition from a company called Quick Heal, which is much cheaper than Endpoint Security. They offer three years of protection at just 900 rupees.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security an eight out of ten. My first piece of advice is not to deploy Endpoint Security on traditional machines because it'll slow it down. India is a price-sensitive market. Many companies won't pay attention to the speed of a hard drive. They'll only look at the size. They would rather go for a 500 GB hard drive, even if it is not required, rather than a 256 GB SSD. 

If you want to deploy something over and above your operating system's capabilities, you need to have a powerful machine to handle that. Performance is mainly an issue on devices using traditional drives. The performance doesn't deteriorate by more than two percent on an SSD drive, whereas it is more than 15 to 20 percent on an average drive.

Symantec Endpoint Security's function is to protect our assets.

The most valuable feature of Symantec Endpoint Security is the protection of our systems.

Symantec Endpoint Security can improve management because it is difficult to do. It is not a straightforward tool to use. Additionally, the dashboards and reports could be better. It is difficult to understand what exactly is your current status.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Security for approximately one year.

Symantec Endpoint Security is stable.

The scalability of Symantec Endpoint Security is good, and easy to do.

We have approximately 10,000 users using this solution.

The support from Symantec Endpoint Security is very good.

The initial setup of Symantec Endpoint Security is complex. However, not as complicated as other solutions, Symantec VIP.

I rate the initial setup of Symantec Endpoint Security a three out of five.

The most important aspect of a security solution is having good reports, to help understand what's going on. This is one of the main points that a security team should have. Good visibility from the reports and an easy understanding of what's going on.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

We are using Symantec Security for the server and the client. For the server, we are using Symantec Data Center Security (DCS), and for the client, we are using Symantec Endpoint Security.

We work with all deployment models. We have cloud and on-premises deployments, and we also have hybrid deployments. The cloud provider varies based on the customer, but mostly, our customers have AWS and Azure.

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.

It works very smoothly. There is no high utilization of the hardware.

EDR and ATP features are most valuable.

Its interface needs improvement. Its interface is very old, and it needs a new look. Other solutions, such as Sophos and BitDefender, have a better and more modern interface, whereas Symantec has had the same interface for a while. There has been no enhancement in the interface. They should update and provide a better interface in 2022 for a better user experience for their customers.

Currently, Symantec's EDR functionality is expensive, and it is an add-on, whereas other devices have built-in EDR functionality. It would be beneficial for customers if Symantec does the same.

Their support also needs to be improved.

I have been using this solution for 11 years.

It is average in terms of stability. It works fine, but when we do the upgrades, there are stability issues.

Its scalability is very good. We are able to scale up to 10,000 users, and it is working fine. There are no issues with it. 

We are working with government institutions and corporations in various industries. We are also working with educational institutes. It is being used in all sectors. 

We don't have any plans to increase its usage as of now.

We have been a Symantec partner for a long time. Since the Broadcom takeover, we have been facing many issues with support. In the last three years, we have not received proper support from them. We have had the worst experience with their support. They don’t understand the issue. I explain the problem, and after two or three days, they again come back asking for the log. I would rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

We didn't use any other solution previously. We have been using only Symantec. It is the best solution for us and our customers.

I'm involved in its implementation from the start to the end, which includes project discussions, deployment, and handover. I work with my colleagues and provide guidance on what to perform, how to perform, and how to configure policies.

The deployment depends on the environment of a customer. Some customers have a small environment with 100 to 200 users. In such a case, the deployment is simple, and there’s no complexity. If a customer has 5,000 to 10,000 users, and they are working from different locations, requiring server configuration at different locations across the world, it gets complex. We have done successful implementation in complex as well as simple scenarios. 

The deployment duration varies based on the number of users. Usually, one to two days are enough. The number of people required for deployment also varies based on the customer environment.

We create a document for implementation, and when we are handling a large implementation with 5,000 users, we deploy the 100 or 200 from our side, and then we guide and train the customer's engineer who takes care of the remaining deployments.

For 5,000 users, 5 to 10 people are enough to handle the deployment and maintenance. They all have different roles. For example, one of them handles the policies, and one of them takes care of the implementation. Similarly, one of them works with the updates. They take care of all the functions.

We do evaluate other solutions when a customer asks for a comparison with another solution, such as Sophos. We then need to do a PoC in the customer environment.

I would strongly recommend this product. It is better than all other antivirus products. It is a brilliant product when it comes to functions or features. There is no doubt about its antivirus capability. It is far better than other products, but they need to focus on its UI.

Overall, it is a very good product. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

My primary use case is malware protection. I also use it for device control, application control, and more. We are a financial institution.

The stability of this product has improved the way our organization functions. There is little maintenance, and it doesn't take long to install or uninstall. Once it is configured correctly, there is little chance of it failing.

This means that we have more of our technical staff available to work on other problems that occur.

The most valuable feature is the proactive malware scanning capability.

When you are performing simple tasks, it is not as demanding on resources as compared to other security products. This is an aspect that I like.

The application and device control functionality is good. We are able to see which applications are installed using the product management dashboard. This gives us the ability to monitor workstations, including which applications they have in which tabs.

There are extensions available, such as the Browser extension, to deal with specific types of attacks. This helps to protect against hackers. I have tested it with samples and it protects the system well.

The interface is simple to use.

One issue that comes to mind is that there is no way of specifying categories that the firewall should block. It is able to block specific URLs but other solutions, such as Kaspersky, allow you to block access by specifying a category.

It would be helpful if this product provided patch management functionality.

Compared to Kaspersky, the reporting features are not rich. Overall, the reporting capability needs to be improved.

I have been working with Symantec Endpoint Security for between 12 and 18 months.

This is a very stable product. It is the feature that I like most about the product because when we were using other ones, we had failures. With this solution, there is no frequent failure of the components.

For example, in other products that we've used, the virus definitions didn't update and systems were compromised because of it.

We have approximately 3,000 users that are protected by this solution. We add branches and more computers weekly, and we don't have problems doing so.

We were able to easily integrate with Active Directory using the Symantec Manager, so I would say it's very scalable.

As we add more branches, our usage of the product will continue to increase.

We have not been in direct contact with Symantec technical support.

The training and documentation that they provide are helpful. There is a good amount of documentation that helped to provide us with a complete picture of the product. It's nice, neat, and easy to understand.

Prior to Symantec, we used a solution by Kaspersky.

We use other anti-virus products and this one is less resource intensive and more stable than the others. It is also simpler to use.

Symantec Web Security Service (WSS) has some good features that I wish were in this product. Unfortunately, it is another subscription.

It does not take long to install this solution.

Unfortunately, the order that we followed was not recommended. We just deployed and then obtained subscriptions after that. This is not a recommended approach for deployment. However, we have a good partner and a good support team.

Due to our limited bandwidth, we had to install manually rather than use the web-based deployment. This meant that it took us longer because we had to visit each of the physical workstations. In total, it took approximately two months to deploy.

We deployed the solution ourselves. There were seven or eight people io the team and different staff members were given different duties. All of them are system administrators.

We have three people that handle the maintenance. They monitor the dashboard for possible compromises, and our specialists have to use the device protection and application controls.

There are also tasks related to reporting issues that arise during monitoring, including those concerning possible attacks or infections. One of the managers in our IT staff is responsible for updating the definitions that we get from Symantec.

There was an incident where we had problems with a password and we had difficulty recovering it. We contacted our local partner and I think they contacted Symantec. After that, we recovered the password. That was the only maintenance-related problem that we had.

The pricing was one of the factors that led us to choose this product.

That said, I was not the decision maker. I simply proposed it to our manager.

When our subscription to Kaspersky ended, we were tasked with comparing features between different solutions. The three options we considered were Symantec, Kaspersky, and Sophos.

One of the things that we liked about Symantec is the low resource utilization. I am not the person who completed the analysis but I know that the fact it is lightweight was one factor.

We liked the functionality that Sophos provided but the deployment scenario functionality was not useful for the workstations in our environment. It involved deploying the dashboard to workstations in the cloud, which is not our preferred approach.

Kaspersky has richer reporting capabilities. This is an area that could be enhanced in our Symantec solution.

We deployed the product one and a half years ago, and we received training to configure and maintain it. It was recommended that we complete our training in terms of policies, which is something that we also did. Once that was finished, we experienced the stability and good features that the product provides.

This is a product that I have recommended for use in another company. I have been told that after they adopted it, they were pleased with the fact it consumes fewer resources than their previous solutions. They manage it from the cloud.

Currently, I am referring another company to this product and my understanding is that they're going to implement it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We provide support, services, and licenses to customers. Clients mainly use it for security features: antivirus, anti-spyware, host firewall, and the application development tool. Our clients are in enterprise industries as well as small finance companies.

The solution is deployed on-premises. I'm working with the 14.3 RU4 version.

The most useful features are the antivirus, anti-spyware, and firewall features. It also provides application control and Host Integrity, which is a very unique feature.

Symantec helps prevent attackers from stealing domain credentials and launching stealthy attacks.

Almost all threats are detected by Symantec, which is a very good feature. They also have Global Intelligence. It's a great detection technology.

We blocked indicators of compromise. We created multiple custom rules for that in the application control, which is helpful if it's a zero-day.

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.

The APIs could also be more developed.

I've been using this solution for 12 years.

The product is very stable.

It's scalable. Our clients plan to increase usage.

Currently, the technical support is not very good. I would rate them four out of ten. Their response time is slow.

Initial setup is very easy. There's no complexity. It's simple compared to other products.

We deployed the solution through the remote deployment tool.

Our implementation strategy was to first implement the managers, test the solution, then deploy it.

Two or three people are needed for deployment: one person for administration, one for deployment, and one for reporting.

The amount of people needed for maintenance depends on the different policy creations. It mostly involves creating the policies for the threat actors, the indicators of compromise, and upgrades. It also depends on the size of the company.

I heard a lot about McAfee, and their reporting feature is very good compared to Symantec.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

Symantec provides an anti-malware solution for our infrastructure, including a host firewall, behavioral analysis, and intrusion prevention. It's an essential compliance component of an enterprise.

We have domestic and offshore branch offices, data centers, and headquarters. We initially deployed it to 2,500 workstations and eventually expanded to 3,500.

Symantec detects malicious software in our environment and provides intrusion prevention. We see the benefits immediately after deployment. Our whole platform benefited from Endpoint Security.

Symantec's detection capabilities are strong. It involves run protection and behavioral analysis.

We had an issue with the Broadcom migration. We had some problems with product support, and the deployment is tricky because it's an on-premises technology. Deploying any on-premises security solution is hard because you have to distribute the software. 

There are also some issues with false positives and minor product issues in terms of usability. It comes back to the support team. If we have product issues, then it should be relatively easy for them to resolve the matter. 

We started using Symantec in 2015 or early 2016. We still use the solution, but we plan to decommission it by the year's end.

Symantec is relatively stable, but it's an on-premises solution, so we need to spend more time on version upgrades and patches. We have encountered some major bugs, which cause DSOD on all our machines during updates.

We haven't tried scaling up because we maintain a stable number of users, but it's fairly easy to add some users to Symantec. It's just like migration.

I rate Symantec support six out of ten. They need more specialized support engineers with advanced knowledge of Endpoint Security. We have several people with experience using the product, so we know the basics already. Also, the resolution speed isn't acceptable.

Neutral

We used McAfee VirusScan Enterprise in the past. We transferred to Symantec primarily because our team has prior experience with Symantec. We also considered its Gartner rating. I believe Symantec is in the first or second spot in the endpoint protection category.

We did the deployment and testing ourselves. The deployment wasn't as easy as we would like. The environment and network are complex. That's why we need to consider different types of deployment. We use our software configuration management and also some standalone solutions. We sometimes use DMZ for manual installation. Those were the pain points of the deployment. It's not one source of deployment that we use differently.

It took around three months to completely deploy Symantec and replace McAfee.
Our deployment team was a combination of IT and security operations. A few asset owners were included, as well. After deployment, maintenance is minimal. 

I don't have any data on ROI, but we get what we need. From the moment we deployed Symantec, we haven't had any incidents coming from an endpoint.

I was not involved in the negotiations, but I believe the price was within the range we expect for endpoint protection.

We also considered Trend Micro and Carbon Black. Symantec's sales team won by lowering the price and adding some features in the package like web security services and Symantec EDR.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security seven out of ten. I would recommend this product for securing endpoints. Hopefully, their support will improve. 

The valuable feature of the product stems from the fact that the tool serves as a complete solution and can be deployed on either the cloud or an on-premises model, which also makes it a solution that can be deployed on a hybrid cloud model.

There are no additional features my company expects the product to offer since it has no limitations and works properly in any given environment.

Symantec has not properly promoted Symantec Endpoint Security in the market. In my opinion, the product should be properly promoted.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Security for five years. My company is a reseller of the product.

It is a stable solution.

It is a very scalable solution.

I recommend the tool for large-sized organizations.

So far, my company has not faced any problems with the solution's technical support. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

,

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

The price of the product is competitive if compared to its competitors in the market.

I usually recommend Symantec Endpoint Security to others.

As a partner of Symantec, I recommended Symantec Endpoint Security to others.

I got the product's documentation online.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We have used Symantec for several scenarios depending on a client's requirements. We have used the Symantec solution for host integrity, device control, and communication policies. It has the host integration part where we get the custom option to add certain scripts.

Most of the clients have been using it on-prem, but we are now looking into the cloud or SaaS environment because it would be much easier to manage the infrastructure. Our clients have Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure.

Policies are very important and valuable for us. We have to ensure the security of the client environment. We have to ensure that there is no tampering, and restrictions are applied to the devices when one uses third-party devices such as storage and pen drives. It has the flexibility to integrate with other devices.

It is helpful in identifying the rogue devices in the environment where we don't have any agents deployed. We can identify them through Symantec. We have also heard that with cloud Symantec, we can do remote deployment through the console itself.

The dashboard view and reporting are valuable. It is stable and easy to integrate, and it provides custom options.

The agent is lightweight, and the response to the known infections with regular updates from Symantec is also valuable.

Nowadays, threats are changing, and they are moving more towards script control and zero-day attacks. So, we would like to have more control similar to an EDR solution. Symantec Endpoint Protection has certainly come a long way as a traditional antivirus, but because the threats are changing, we would like to have more EDR features so that we have a detailed view of the source from where the infection entered the environment and whether it has tried to connect any other endpoint. It should provide such a detailed view for investigation. It should protect against zero-day threats, etc. These are the key enhancements that can make it a complete solution for any enterprise. Currently, we have seen organizations going for two solutions: antivirus and EDR. With both these capabilities, it would be a complete package.

I have been supporting various clients for six to seven years.

It is stable, and that's why I recommend Symantec, especially when it comes to the server environment.

We follow the N-1 process. Whenever there is a new version, we don't upgrade immediately because there can be potential risks. We upgrade to a new version immediately only if we get the recommendation from the vendor or they have fixed any vulnerability or issue that was reported. Otherwise, we follow the N-1 version approach for upgrades.

I have not seen any challenges with the scalability of the solution. I have worked with multiple clients. One of our clients has about 30,000 end users. They are located in eight to nine countries and have about 15 different remote locations.

We have plans to increase the usage of the product, but it all comes down to client requirements. It depends on their environment, its size, and how we want to further enhance that.

Generally, we get a response, and it works, but we have seen some delays or very generic responses. If there is a quarantined file and we need information about what kind of data is there in that file, it takes a lot of time. We sometimes have to escalate to the next level for getting a proper and timely response because it's our client's data that is in quarantine. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with multiple solutions, such as McAfee, Cortex, and CrowdStrike. McAfee has several components, and if any component stops, it impacts the compliance status and puts everything at risk because the definition will not be distributed. Symantec has an edge there because it does not have too many components. Only with the GUP server, we can distribute the definition in remote locations, which makes it easier. It also provides a view of all the GUP servers in the console.

EDR is a different solution. It provides complete visibility and footprint of zero-day and other threats based on the behavior. Symantec also provides that, but it needs more enhancement on the investigation part.

Based on what I have seen and the feedback I have received, its deployment is straightforward. It takes almost a week because it goes through various stages, such as planning, designing, and deployment. It also depends on a client's environment.

The implementation strategy varies, and it depends on a client's environment, such as whether they are a huge organization or whether they have multiple remote locations.

After the deployment, the next stage is doing the configuration, which takes a little while because it involves engaging different departments of a client and doing segregation and restructuring.

It doesn't take more than four to six months for the technology to mature in the client environment. Immediately after deployment, we start making changes to tune the policies based on a client's requirements and define the exceptions. It takes four to six months to have a stable environment.

We have a separate team that does the deployment, but I do share some recommendations depending upon the client environment. After the deployment, that team hands it over to my team for operations, and then we make the changes. So, they do the basic deployment, and we then take over and make the solution mature.

Generally, its deployment does not require more than two people. At the initial stage, they collect and gather information from various sources and proceed with the deployment, and then it takes some time to do the configuration. So, two people are good enough for initial deployment, but when it comes to rolling out the agent to the entire landscape, it takes time. You have to engage various people from different departments. The people involved in its deployment and configuration are administrators and engineers.

It usually doesn’t require much maintenance. We do our regular health checks to see whether the definitions are getting updated or not and whether their replications are working or not. Its maintenance is a one-man job, but the operational activities of the organization generally require two to three people, but the number can vary based on the size of the environment.

Our clients have certainly seen an ROI. They have been using the solution for a long time. They don't want to switch from one solution to another, and that's why we recommend the most stable ones to them.

Pricing is handled by a separate team. Whenever a new client asks for a recommendation, we provide it, but they deal directly with Symantec or other vendors for the pricing.

You should first understand a client's environment in terms of:

• What does the client environment look like?
• What is the size of the environment?
• What are the features they are looking for?
• What is the criticality of their environment?

All these aspects are important. At times, we have seen that clients just ask for the best solution, but they don't have a vision of what would make a solution best for them and what are they expecting from it. They should summarize their requirements, and accordingly, you can propose how Symantec can meet their requirements.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We were facing many problems related to AV definitions not being updated and viruses, and we could solve these problems with the help of Symantec. 

It is a good product. It has saved us from external attacks and viruses.

It is easy to use. Its interface is user-friendly. So, anybody can use it very well, which is a good thing.

It is a reliable product, and its performance is also good.

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 have been using this solution for the last seven years.

Its stability is good. It is reliable.

Its scalability is good. We have more than 50,000 clients in our environment, and Symantec is installed on all the clients. It has been working properly, and it is easily able to detect viruses and malicious files. We currently don’t have any plans to increase its usage.

Their support is good. Every time we are facing an issue, their technical support team is able to help us. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I didn’t use any other solution previously.

I wasn’t involved in its deployment. In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require any maintenance.

I would 100% recommend it. I would rate it a ten out of ten.