Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

We use Symantec Endpoint Security as an antivirus solution to protect our servers.

The product has valuable features for insights.

There could be definition updates installed and running for the product, similar to new EDR solutions that receive updates from the internet. We still have legacy concepts where clients have installed definitions themselves. It could be more effective. Additionally, the memory usage by the product could be reduced.

We have been using Symantec Endpoint Security for ten years.

I rate the platform’s stability an eight out of ten.

We have 13000 Symantec Endpoint Security users in our organization. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support team’s response time is slow.

The initial setup process is easy.

I rate the product's pricing a six out of ten.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security a seven 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 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.

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.

We have Windows Endpoints and Linux Endpoints, but I believe it is mostly deployed on Windows. We do not have it installed on Linux.

We don't think the features are very valuable because they have limitations.

There are limitations because everyone these days has hybrid working; however, the endpoint does not work for us unless we are connected to a VPN, which is a major limitation. And because it's quite old technology that hasn't been updated, we don't want an on-premises solution; we want a cloud-based solution. We want a cloud-based solution and a market leader.

When I look at the Gartner Quadrant and the Magic Quadrant, it's nowhere near, if not lagging behind. For those reasons, I would not use it.

It was a good product many years ago, but since Broadcom took it over and so on, it has fallen behind.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for over five years.

I don't recall the version, but we are not working with the most recent version.

It's an older version. We are not looking to carry on using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security. We want one of the market leaders, and Symantec is in no way near being the market leader.

It's stable, but this could be due to our surroundings. There is only enough storage to store it. And I believe it is due to us, rather than the product, that we only store a limited amount of data.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is scalable.

We have very few people in our company who use this solution because we currently outsource our security operations to Symantec. There will only be three or four people that will be working with this product.

It's used every day, at some point.

I have not personally contacted technical support, but my security team may have.

Broadcom is concentrating on its top 200 customers. I don't think my team is overly impressed with the support they have been getting.

The support needs improvement.

Previously, we had not used any other Endpoint protection products.

I don't remember the installation process because it's been five years since it was done.

I'm sure it will require some endpoint updates.

Because we are still awaiting pricing, I am not sure what the difference is. I have only done the technical comparison; I haven't done the pricing comparison yet.

We are looking at CrowdStrike and Microsoft Defender.

Because we're not in the Top 200 in Symantec, we don't get the traction and escalations, but more importantly, if I look at the market leaders, it's very much Microsoft or CrowdStrike, and Broadcom Symantec is nowhere near the leading endpoint security in Gartner.

We want one that is multi-platform so that we can receive consistent and comprehensive reporting and alerts across all platforms. We're looking for a SaaS-based solution, which means it's all cloud-based and has advanced threat protection, including machine learning for zero-day attacks, as well as the ability to detect vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in real-time. One that's able to do memory scanning for malicious code threat hunting.

I couldn't recommend this solution; instead, I'm going for the market leader, which, is CrowdStrike, followed by Microsoft.

Based on the experience of my colleagues, and not as much my own, I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a six out of ten.

We use it for endpoint protection for desktops and server computers.

Some of the administrative features are very good. I like the way it allows you to automate things when you're using it with Active Directory. 

I like the additional features that come with it. The firewall feature and the encryption feature that they throw in are good as well. Another thing that I like about Symantec is that it runs on different platforms, not just on Windows.

Getting it up and running can be a bit overcomplicated. 

Symantec isn't good in terms of updating customers about updates. You'd normally have to search it out. Sometimes, the update process for the administration and management console can be a bit intimidating, and it can be quite inconvenient to get the updates. That's because when you have to do the update, you have to update the management console, and then you need to update the clients. Their application that's installed on desktops and servers needs to go hand in hand with the management console. Sometimes, it's a bit unwieldy to see that process through. 

The ransomware protection on Symantec doesn't match its competitors at the moment. Defender is doing a better job in terms of ransomware protection.

Their support can be improved. It's difficult to know who to call, and their online knowledge base is quite difficult to navigate.

I have been using this solution for about 14 years.

Its stability is excellent. It is very stable.

It is very scalable. This is one of the things I like about it.

Their support isn't always very easy. It is difficult to know who to call. 

The online knowledge base is quite difficult to navigate because they seem to have so many products, and there are so many different versions of all of those products. It is hard to find an article that relates to the problem you are trying to solve.

It could be a bit overcomplicated to get it up and running.

Its updates are also not easy. We only have a small team. Usually, wherever I've worked, the IT team is pretty small and you don't normally have an engineer who is dedicated to Symantec. They do various other jobs, and they look at the application infrequently. So, when a major task comes along, because of the complexity, it is sometimes quite difficult for them to achieve what they need to do. It takes them a little while to do it because they have to re-learn the application and find the correct article in the knowledge base for the right version. The instructions can sometimes be quite complicated.

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.

It seems to be a fairly robust antivirus tool. It doesn't catch all viruses and protect you from everything, but it seems to protect you from a good number of variations of viruses and malware. It doesn't catch all malware, but it does catch quite a lot. Microsoft Defender is better at detecting malware at the moment. Microsoft Defender is doing a really good job in terms of matching and probably even beating Symantec in terms of malware and ransomware protection.

A lot of people who are using Windows normally use Microsoft Defender, but I normally use Symantec on Windows Desktops. Symantec runs on different platforms. It is not just for Windows.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

We are a small enterprise. Our primary use case of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is for malicious websites and malware attacks.

The solution is easy to use.

The product must be uploaded, keeping all the sites with threats and virus signatures. We have to deploy or push EXE files to the endpoints like Kaspersky.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for two years.

Symantec is stable.

This product is scalable.

Technical support is good.

The deployment was very easy.

Symantec End-User is not expensive.

Before choosing Symantec, I tried Apex One from Trend Micro. Symantec is better because it is more up to date with viruses and malware signatures. 

I would rate this solution a 7 out of 10. You have to follow the updates and monitor Symantec.