Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

We use the product as an antivirus solution and install it on every end-user machine.  

I think Symantec is a good antivirus solution. There is not really a specific feature that I think stands out. If you consider the protection as a feature, I would say that antivirus protection is the most valuable feature the product has.  

We have had some problems with the Symantec solution. The problems were bad enough that I was compelled to start to research into other products. The biggest issue was the whitelisting feature. The Symantec software has a feature that detects certain things as malicious and it takes care of the issue. It is supposed to do that. Sometimes the things it flags are not real issues — they are essentially false positives. Sometimes there are things we want it to let through that it would otherwise flag. We put these things on a whitelist so they get allowed. We were having a problem keeping a particular file on the whitelist. It was an EXE and Symantec kept flagging it even when it was whitelisted.  

To fix the issue, we had to do in-house software development. We had to run some extra code. The process was not smooth and, in the long run, it basically did not work. The support by Symantec on the issue was of no further help and it remained a problem.  

A feature that seems to be missing from Symantec is reporting on external devices. For example, if a remote user gets a virus on their computer and they are accessing our system, I want to know. The Symantec agent should be checking this in the cloud and informing us that a particular end-user got a virus. I should get a report or alert somehow. The computer in question should be isolated — or something like that — to mitigate the potential of the threat. Instead, nothing happens.   

The enterprise product that we have now does not have that feature. Maybe Symantec has that feature implemented in other products, but I do not know about it. Maybe it is not there at all or maybe it is some type of cloud feature. But the end result is I have looked for the solution in the product, can not find it, support did not inform me that it can be resolved, and we are essentially left with a vulnerability. That is really not acceptable.   

I have been using Symantec Endpoint security for about 2 years.  

It is stable. We do not really have problems with the product crashing.  

Endpoint Security is not that scalable right now because it is hard to even get a new quote. It is part of the problem happening during the transition when they got bought up by Broadcom. The whole process of renewing and buying new licenses has become a pain. It takes forever to get a quote.  

On a daily basis in our company right now there are around 300 people using the product. The system is monitored by the system admin and myself. We have a cooperative situation.  

The Symantec customer support team is responsive by email. I would say it is between 80% to 90% effective.  

I have not used other antivirus products as an admin. The Symantec product was already in use at the company when I came here.  

I would say that the initial installation is moderately straightforward. It is not really completely straightforward and it is not really complex. It is somewhere in the middle.  

The deployment of the server takes more time, but I am not the one who deployed it. I do not know exactly how long it took. I am not aware of any surprises or difficulties with the deployment.  

The system admin did the installation without external assistance.  

I was not the one who implemented Symantec at our company. The decision was made before I arrived and I inherited the product.  

I am now researching products in consideration of deploying a replacement option for Symantec because it is not totally meeting our security needs.  

The honest advice I would have for someone considering this solution at this point in time is to move on. I say this because Symantec is being bought out by Broadcom. That may not be a bad thing on its own. Symantec has traditionally been a very good company and still was up to this point. But being bought by another company just means that there will be a mess because of the transition and integration between these companies and products. Developers of the product will be spending time focusing on that merger rather than core product issues. It creates a little bit of a mess that the client should not have to suffer through when there are other capable solutions.  

Another thing is that Symantec still needs to implement some features that it does not have. They have very good, strong protection, but they are behind other products on the market. There are a lot of more features they have failed to implement. Especially now when everyone is working remotely and with cloud products, the security does not seem complete.  

Maybe the cloud version addresses these issues. I have not used the cloud version because I am on the enterprise version and like in-house deployment. Our version is missing a ton of features that are very important to security especially in the current environment.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security as a seven-out-of-ten. It is missing too much to be rated higher.  

It helps me with the security policies that I make. I can change policies quickly and easily.

The valuable features are device control, SONOR, and anti-virus.

Device control in Symantec is not limited to only some devices. You can add any device you want, so that it can become a part of the policy you made. The anti-virus feature is very good.

I would like to see improvements in the anti-virus and the device control features.

Anti-Virus: I would like to see Symantec improve the ant-virus to stop and detect Ransomware and email attachments. Symantec is weak with Ransomware. I would like to see the anti-spam for Outlook improve the scanning and blocking of attachments.

Device control: I would like to see an improvement in the USB control, because it sometimes creates a conflict with USB printers.

I have been using this solution since 2006.

There were no stability issues.

Customer Service:

Customer service is very good.

Technical Support:

I used technical support through a vendor and they were very good.

The initial setup was easy and I had no problem with it.

I evaluated other options like McAfee and Sophos, but they weren’t good enough for me.

Symantec's Endpoint Protection Small Business Edition earns high marks from AV-TEST for protection and usability. However, this antivirus software doesn't scan email, a vulnerability in today's digital age. It might be the best choice for antivirus protection for your small business but that depends on the features and functions most important for your business and your security.
just make sure thats you are always update and you have the latest release.

This is very good product. My advice is to calculate your needs. Make a decision based on an accurate assessment of the price, the licensing, and the support.

When I choose a product, I look for stability, security, and safety.

We use it to maintain a minimum of security in our office. It's very important to have an antivirus in our environment. The main object of the solution is to maintain stability so that our environment is protected from any websites that can harm our solution.

To prevent attacks you need a full range of protection: antivirus, anti-spam, proxies, and firewalls. Symantec provides the antivirus piece.

It has reduced our attack surface and that's why we keep using the solution. It helps prevent cyber attacks and spam. Symantec Endpoint Security is an important element for maintaining security in our company.

One of the most valuable features is the ability to manage antivirus security. There is an admin console that helps you make policies and do deployment of the clients, to make them reachable and to deploy updates.

Using the management console is a bit complex. There are many features that we cannot use and we could use some help. We need some assistance to make them work better. They need to add features to make it simpler.

It may also need to be updated for new attacks.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Security since I started this job three years ago.

The stability is good.

We use it for every laptop, locally. We have about 50 users.

We have not used the technical support so far.

I have also used Kaspersky, in another job.

The deployment does not take very much time, maybe 15 minutes, under good conditions. But it depends on many factors.

It's affordable.

We haven't compared the pricing with other solutions. When our license renewal arrives we will look at our needs and we will evaluate every option possible so that we can choose the right one.

When I came to this company they were already using Symantec.

Symantec is a good solution. I recommend it over some other products. There are two or three products that can help, such as Kaspersky. Every solution has its advantages and disadvantages. It depends on your choice or needs.

We don't know how to use it to block attackers that are attempting to gain control of Active Directory. I don't know if an antivirus can interface directly with Active Directory. Our aim is to secure all solutions, not only Active Directory.

Overall, Symantec Endpoint Security is an important tool to help our factory make progress. Symantec has a good reputation and I would recommend it.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is used to control some device access and protect endpoints.

Because of organizational changes, I dislike the entire situation. The solution has become quite complicated since Broadcom acquired Symantec, and we no longer sell it or try not to sell it.

There have been so many changes since the Broadcom acquisition, that we feel like abandoning the product.

It now has a lack of support, and they could be more knowledgeable.

We have been selling Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for more than eight years.

It is deployed both on-premises and on the cloud.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is a stable solution.

We have three or four clients who still use this solution.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is bad because the support has changed.

Technical support could be more knowledgeable.

We are doing more with Forcepoint. We are not doing as much as we used to with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security.

The installation is straightforward, it's quite simple.

We require a team of two engineers to deploy and maintain this solution.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

The price could be lower.

I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a five out of ten.

We use this product for threat detection.

This solution is just another antivirus. Whether it actually works, nobody knows. If it finds something then it's great but if it misses something then we just don't know about it.

If this product detects a threat then it will provide an alert.

This product uses a signature-based detection system, which is something that we want to move away from. The current buzz is about next-generation antivirus, which is user-behavior-based protection rather than signature-based. Behavior-based detection relies on patterns of behavior to search for suspicious activity.

The problem with a signature-based solution is that if the signature is in the file then it catches the threat. If it's not there, then it doesn't. These days, when a virus infects the system, it doesn't advertise the fact. The only way you figure it out is if something malicious happens, such as ransomware. With a behavior-based detection system, you can identify a threat before it does something malicious.

There is no local support for Symantec products in Hong Kong.

I have been working with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security since I joined the organization, which is less than a year. The company has been using it for longer.

The stability is fine.

We don't have much concern about scalability because we don't expand a lot. It isn't something that we considered or looked into.

We have 30 users in the company.

We wanted to reach technical support but it was a very complicated process. There is no local Broadcom support in Hong Kong.

The whole process needs to be improved. You have to log in, put in some verification information that includes a lot of credentials. Then, they want you to upload your license information before you can log a ticket. Overall, it's not a nice process.

It takes a really long time to get support and when you're waiting for something to be fixed, it's not like you have all of the time in the world.

I would rate the technical support a one out of ten.

The implementation and deployment were completed before I joined the company. For maintenance, one person working from time to time is enough. Usually, there is not much to do.

This is not the cheapest product and I know others that are most cost-effective, although it is difficult to compare because it depends on the features.

We are currently looking for other products that we can replace Symantec with. Within the next nine months, we will have evaluated several products and selected one that is more suitable.

We are switching because Symantec has been sold to Broadcom, and Broadcom no longer has an office in Hong Kong. We want to have a product that has local support available.

One of the reasons that we are changing products is because we want behavior-based detection instead of something that is signature-based. Symantec has products that fit these requirements but we won't be considering them because of the support issues. We won't be looking any further into Symantec products and don't plan on comparing any of the features that they have.

My advice for anybody who is looking to implement the Symantec product is to ensure that they have support available. They should check to make sure that there is somebody contactable in case of a problem.

For what we are paying for, which is a signature-based antivirus, the product is fine. In the future, Symantec needs to continue moving with the trend in the rest of the antivirus or anti-malware world. They need behavior-based detection, sandboxing, user-based, and other advanced features. Signature-based detection will always be there because it's fast. However, it needs other features to detect more advanced threats.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is easy to use.

I am completely satisfied with this solution.

Overall, the price could be reduced.

We have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for at least five years.

We are using the latest versions.

We have no issues with the stability of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security.

It's a scalable solution.

We have approximately 500 users in our organization.

The technical support provided by Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is good.

I use Google Meet.

We use whatever the customer wants because we are IT, service providers. However, we use Amazon for our internal application.

We also use Linux, most of the time.

The installation is straightforward.

It could be cheaper.

I would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is used for network security.

The solution is easy to use.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for approximately 10 years.

I have found Symantec End-User Endpoint Security to be stable.

The time frame for the implementation all depends on the number of users, the number of licenses that have been purchased by the company. The typical time frame is three to four days.

I have approximately five customers using this solution.

The technical support could improve because when you reach level one support there is a lot of delays.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is easy to deploy.

To do the implementation it is best to have one engineer and one IT person for the job.

We have some customers on a one-year license and others on a three-year license.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a ten out of ten.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security came with our antivirus protection as a package. Additionally, Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager comes with it by default and it is a wonderful tool.

Symantec is very user-friendly, the interface and functions are very simple for everyone to understand. Additionally, it's a very robust system.

The solution could improve by adding encryption. If it had encryption along with antivirus it would be better.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for approximately 15 years.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is stable.

The solution is scalable.

I would rate the scalability of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security an eight out of ten.

The technical support of Symantec was very good earlier, but it has merged with Broadcom. There are some delays happening and I hope they are resolved soon.

The price of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is okay. When comparing the price of this solution is not expensive.

I rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a nine out of ten because of the endpoint protection and its antivirus capability. It takes care of all the requirements of its customers. If the solution had encryption I would have rated it a ten out of ten.

It just works. We have a console, and I can see it at a glance. I don't have any problems with it at all.

I can push the client out. All the antivirus updates are managed from a single central point, and it just works. 

It would be interesting if Symantec Endpoint protection could also manage Windows Defender. If they were to add a feature, it would be nice if you could see the Symantec client and the Windows Defender client in case you choose to deploy both.

I have been using this solution for 15 years.

We haven't had any problems with it.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security an eight out of 10. We haven't had any problems with it. It just works.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is used for network security.

The administrator's console is very good and easy to manage with it. Deploying patches, definition updates and report is simple.

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

The solution is very stable.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is scalable.

We have approximately 850 endpoint clients using the solution.

The support from Symantec has been poor in my experience. They did not have the knowledge to help us with the issues we were facing.

I have evaluated Kaspersky, CrowdStrike, and Sophos solutions.

I would recommend Symantec End-User Endpoint Security to others. However, I would advise people before implementing the solution they have all the support channels in place to manage it.

In the case of the software-as-a-service, nowadays, companies are looking to outsource the entire operations. I do not want my employees using the solution for anything, such as monitoring the application. We are looking for an implementation partner or the OEM itself where they deploy the solution and monitor it with only one management team. If there is an issue, they notify us. if there are not any issues then they can send regular, weekly, or monthly reports.

I rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a six out of ten.