Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

We primarily use the solution to protect our endpoints. There are growing attacks worldwide, and we need to be protected against any eventuality - including malicious attacks or ransomware. We also use the solution to protect endpoints for users that work from home. 

The product is good at alerting users to anomalies.

The detection is pretty good.

The system has been working fine and is quite stable.

The device control has been working impeccably. 

The solution can scale.

We'd like to have a solution that offers a single pane of glass that would allow us to integrate all of our traffic and solutions under one umbrella so that we can look at all the incidents in one place. 

The product needs to be well versed in the security landscape to best protect us from malicious attacks, as we've seen a rise in activity.

The agent shouldn't use up so many resoures at the endpoint when scanning and protecting.

There needs to be better communication, back and forth, between on-site teams and off-site users. If something is happening off-site there should be some sort of logging or details that can be shared with the main office.

The solution needs to do a better job at scanning video links. 

There have been instances where we haven't been able to find the root causes of alerts.

The size of the footprint of the software is too high. It's quite heavy.

Network and cloud scanning coverage needs to be expanded and improved upon.

The functionality could be much better.

There also needs to be more training offers to companies to help understand the technology and its capabilities a bit better. 

Technical support is not great. They are not responsive. 

I've been using the solution for a long time. It's been more than ten years.

For the most part, the stability is okay. 

You can scale the solution very well. It's not an issue as well. However, the support is lacking, and it might deter users from wanting to scale. Even the resellers are warning clients that the support isn't there, and the company is not responding well to queries. 

We have found Symantec's technical support to be very sluggish. They are very slow to respond and alert us to changes. It's quite a problem. Trend Micro, for example, has much better service. Even if you look at Palo Alto, they really work with you and give you complete training. Symantec really doesn't offer its clients much.

We are using Trend Micro. Many customers seem to be moving over to them as they are losing faith in Symantec's support capabilities. 

The initial setup has given us some trouble in the past. We use a Windows server and have had downtime in terms of setting things up. 

They have increased the products of these products recently without any notice. This hasn't gone over well with small clients.

We are customers and end-users.

We use various versions of the solution, according to which Windows versions we are using.

What we would really like is a solution that could really put all of our security under one pane of glass, which Symantec doesn't really do at this time. 

Our concern is having a solution that can keep up with the shifting landscape, as malicious activity is on the rise. We need a solution that is holistic in nature and can help us work with our other in-house solutions and other products writ large.

Also, the company seems to not be very responsive to queries. The resellers are becoming more vocal on these concerns as well. For this reason, we are considering just switching it out altogether.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a good solution for endpoint protection, however, we worry about the lack of support and response from the company.

We are not satisfied with the technical support. Since Broadcom took over responsibility for its engagement, we have faced many issues. This is why we wish to switch to a different antivirus solution. We are currently in contact with the relevant distributors and suppliers in regards to this issue. We do not wish to encounter the same challenges that we face at present. Before switching to Sophos, we would first have to ensure that all our support-related concerns are addressed.

When an issue happens in my cell, we can log in a ticket on the Symantec or Broadcom websites. From this point, the response time is very slow. Sometimes technical support lacks a proper or firsthand knowledge of an issue and finds itself lacking in the appropriate response. We feel this to be very irritating. The customer wishes for the issue to be resolved, but tech support has shown itself to be inadequate in dealing with enterprise tech products. 

We have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for the last five or six years. 

We are not satisfied with the technical support and find it greatly lacking.

In the past we worked with Sophos, although not with its antivirus product but with Cyberoam Firewall. We recently purchased a new Sophos firewall product, Sophos 101, which is a network firewall solution. The difference is that we did not previously have the appropriate experience with related antivirus products, but now we are in a position to analyze how best Sophos endpoint protection can meet our needs. 

While the solution is easy to use, it is solely because of the support issues we raised that we plan to switch products. 

When it comes to pricing, Sophos is preferable to Symantec. It provides a cloud-based dashboard which affords control and an easy centralized management system. This is of considerable benefit and explains why we have decided to go with Sophos. 

Owing to the support issues we raised, we can only rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security as a five out of ten. 

We are using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for our network security solution to protect us against threats, such as malicious software and websites.

The solution is easy to manage.

The solution already has support for Windows, Mac, and Linux but it could improve by having better support for Linux. We have run into some problems when there are upgrades. If they can improve this point, Symantec would be good for endpoint protection as well as for a critical server.

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

When we were not able to find a solution to issues we are having we have contacted technical support. There are times we created a support ticket in the morning and they respond in the evening when we are not available. However, they have been helpful and eventually provide us with a solution, it can take a bit of time.

The installation is not difficult for Windows and Mac OS it will autonomically install, based on the schedule we plan. However, for Linux, we could not do the installation from the Symantec manager and needed to install it one by one on the servers. 

One great benefit is we do not need to activate a license for every endpoint. The price is fair.

I have evaluated McAfee and Kaspersky.

Symantec was bought recently by Broadcom and this could be a reason some might not want to purchase the solution because of their background. However, this solution is popular and competitive with other solutions, such as McAfee or Kaspersky.

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

I believe we are using the latest version. 

The solution deals with signature-based antiviruses.

We are not very happy with the solution and are in the process of moving away from it. 

Owing to its limitations, we are currently moving towards EDR products, which we find to be more dynamic. 

The solution could be more secure and scalable. 

We have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for two or three years. 

The solution is stable. As a product, it does what it should, but no more. It will fail to detect a new kind of malware that lacks a signature. 

The solution could be more scalable. 

I cannot comment on the technical support as I do not deal with them directly. 

The installation was very easy. 

I do not recall exactly how long it took. 

We have a team of around five people, all engineers, who are responsible for deployment and maintenance. 

There is a yearly license. 

I believe there were other products we evaluated before going with the solution. 

There are around 5,000 users in our organization who are making use of the solution. 

This solution is only recommended in the initial phases for an organization which is just starting out. But, considering the current threat landscape, I do not recommend signature-based antivirus for any organization.

We use this solution for threat protection in our automation control systems.

One of the features is the ability to frequently get virus signature updates.

The solution could improve by having a better graphical interface.

We have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is scalable, we have approximately 1400 systems using this solution.

The solution was bought by Broadcom and since the change, the support has not been good.

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

We primarily use the solution as active protection for our endpoints. We also use it for its upgrade frequency.

The solution runs very quickly.

The solution is stable.

It's quite a scalable product.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward.

The localization could be better. It could be more friendly for local users.

It's a solution that's only in English. It makes it difficult if you, for example, speak a different language. If that's the case, and you don't understand English well, you might struggle to understand aspects of the product. They need to develop a multi-language interface.

I've been dealing with the solution for about five years at this point. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is reliable. 

We've found the scalability to be good. If we need to expand it, we can do so.

We have one customer who currently uses the product.

The initial setup is not difficult or complex. It's quite straightforward and fairly simple to implement.

I cannot recall, however, exactly how long the deployment process took.

You only need one engineer to handle the deployment and maintenance aspects. You do not need a large team.

We are integrators. We are able to handle implementations for our clients.

I cannot speak to the exact licensing costs. We recommend the solution to our clients, however, they buy the license from the vendor directly.

We are Symantec integrators.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. So far, we've been pleased with its capabilities for the most part.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. We already recommend it to our clients.

On each desktop, we have Symantic End-User Endpoint Security installed to control the use of any unauthorized software, any unauthorized files being downloaded to the workstations, and so on.

It is a scalable product and is average stability-wise.

As for improvement, it would be good to have Symantic End-User Endpoint Security integrate more with other cloud computing providers rather than being a standalone product.

The spam filter is something that you can't control, and you can't set the filter to intercept different types of emails. We certainly don't have any control over what can be adjusted in the actual filter. So, we still have a 50/50 chance of a suspect email being legitimate or not.

It would be good if they can partner with one of the other big players who provides enterprise software that includes it with the product rather than having to buy their software separately.

I've been using it for the last two years.

Stability-wise, this solution is average. Because it's not cloud-based, where it's being updated continuously, there are times when it displays something on all the workstations and disables the workstations. We then would have to call the consultant to come in and apply some updates.

It is scalable. It's being used universally by all workstations in my organization. We have 10 users.

We have not had a positive experience with technical support. 

Implementation was done remotely by the provider to the actual domain server. A consultant performed the implementation.

The licensing costs are huge compared to what is normally included in the licensing with other products such as the Microsoft products that we're using. We're paying between $300 and $400 per seat.

If you have the opportunity to have an integrated security product, go with it instead of Symantic End-User Endpoint Security.

It does what it says on the box, but there are so many other products that do the same thing but better. So, I would rate Symantic End-User Endpoint Security at seven on a scale from one to ten.

We are providing endpoint protection services. Our customers are very basic, and they usually enquire about endpoint protection, mainly antivirus. We try to explain to them about the threats and suggest that they go for endpoint security. We suggest this solution because it is a cloud-based solution, and they don't need to spare a VM for it. However, most of the time, they insist that nothing will happen to their system, and they just want to renew their endpoint protection system. They are usually not aware of ransomware or other threats.

I recently checked with a customer, and the feedback that we have got from this customer is that it is catching almost all pirated applications. They are very happy with it. The customer was using a few pirated applications, and it blocked all those applications. The IT person was able to convince them to go for genuine applications.

Device control is most valuable. Symantec is providing all such features in the basic plan, whereas when we last checked, such a feature was not available in the basic plan of Malwarebytes. 

More control features can be added, and its performance can also be better. Sometimes, the performance is not good when we access the cloud console. Moving to each tab is slow. 

The dashboard can be a little bit user-friendly. For some users, it is a bit difficult. If someone is a little bit familiar with it, then it is fine. Otherwise, it is hard to find policies in Symantec.

I have been using this solution for just one year.

It is stable.

Initially, our customer had a problem with SSO, and they contacted Symantec's technical support. They got immediate support, but the support that they received was not good.

Initially, it was a bit complex, and we spent some time understanding it. Since then, it has been straightforward. We know where exactly everything is. We have become familiar with it.

We usually set it up for our customers.

It is cheap. It is especially cheaper than Malwarebytes, which is three times higher than this. It is also cheaper than Cisco. Its price is almost similar to Bitdefender, Gravity, and CloudZone. 

Before recommending a solution, we check out the new features in each solution because we provide constant support. I would recommend this solution if a customer's requirements are basic. Similarly, if you are concerned about the price and looking for a safer option to secure your endpoints, you can go with Symantec.

It lacks certain features that are there in other solutions. There are certain features that are available in Bitdefender, but they are not there in this solution. I'm also not sure how good is its anti-ransomware protection.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a seven out of ten. As compared to other solutions, I don't find it to be a great solution, but our customers are very satisfied with it, and they would rate it at least an eight out of ten.

The primary use of this solution is for security.

I have found the central control console the most valuable feature.

There is room for improvement in the zero-day threat detection system.

In the next release of this solution, the email integration could improve.

I have been using this solution for approximately five years.

When comparing this solution to others in the current market it is expensive.

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

We use it for endpoint security.

We no longer have to deal with day-to-day threats, and we can focus more on work. Whenever there are some problems, our operations don't stop. So, we can continue our work knowing that there is a good security solution protecting us.

Its ease of use in deploying it and regular updates are most valuable.

It can be improved in terms of features and integration. It should have more advanced features and more integration. Currently, it is just talking to their own solutions. They could add more artificial intelligence, more XDR, and more integration with other vendors so that we can do sharing of information with other vendors.

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

It is not stable in terms of the company. They have already been bought many times. A lot of people are changing brands because of the acquisition of Broadcom. So, it is not much stable.

They are the best. There is no problem in regards to response time. You can easily get technical support.

Its initial setup was straightforward.

They're on the reasonable side. They are at mid-level. They're not too expensive as compared to their competitors. They're also not too cheap. In terms of price structure, hopefully, they could do a subscription.

If you are looking for regular endpoint security, you can count on Symantec, but if you're looking for more advanced security or have advanced requirements, or if you have a big company that has different security products in place, you might as well look for another one. I could suggest Symantec if your security appetite is not that big.

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