Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

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.

The primary key is because it doesn't impact much in the performance of the endpoint.

For me, the end point is almost a commodity. So, an advantage with Symantec is the integration. The integration with our two directories for taking control to administrate people, and then follow up with the segmentation to different people. To be able to manage a subset of the endpoint registering the solution, the distribution is in geographical sounds. The dashboard can be emailed, and I can receive the solution.

I find the most valuable features are the security features that have been developed in the past few years. 

A good improvement would be altering the console in the console manager. Sometimes we need to add and improve the security to access to the console because the indicators and we can take management activities into the console, and it's, nice to have to improve the security access to the console.

It is very stable. I do not have any problems with it at all. 

I only use the technical support once or twice a year. I find that sometimes they are a bit slow to find a solution. 

The most imprortant criteria for me to find a proper solution in this sphere are:

• Knowledge of the market
• Study of the solution

I also looked at McAffe, but I noticed that Symantec was the better performing solution when I researched respected user performance.

My primary use case for this is protecting the end user against cyber attacks. It is a simple product that is easily implemented on all of our hosts and servers.  It is especially helpful on our exchange server.

The Symantec product helps us protect ourselves against the Trojan horse. It reduces risk. As a financial institution, we are constantly at risk of attack.

I find the most valuable feature is that the product works on Linux and Microsoft Windows.  I think it is one of the best solutions to implement or host IPs.

In the future, I think there should be a sandboxing feature. Some of the most used endpoint protection does not include sandboxing. We cannot rely on URL filtering or IP repetition. Sometimes attacks can pass through the firewall.  

In addition, this product must be compatible with a VMware environment. Because most of our server has VMware. It seems that its not working very well with VMware.

Finally, they need to do some effort to make it a little bit sly. They have to make some improvement in order to not make the computer slow during all of the backend scanning.

It is a product that is simple and is working fine.

It is scalable because it is easy to use and it is fond of multiple features, using the management console.

I am not directly involved with the support team, one of my colleagues handles this communication.

The initial setup was very easy. It took about 2-3 minutes to be up and start downloading all updates on the PC's. You don't have to do anything more because it has an ability to work on Linux and Microsoft Windows products also.

The most important criteria for us is the price and the licensing. 

Our company used Norton Anti-Virus previously.  But, I was not at the company during that time.

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.

The solution is used for detection and endpoint protection against threats and malware. 

I like that the solution can be scaled to deal with different threats. The same agent will be integrated into different Symantec products, which obviates the need to deploy multiple agents. This keeps things very small and effective. 

The solution should have more integration with other platforms. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach to the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be resolved concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for over a year.

The solution is stable. 

The solution can be scaled to handle different threats. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open. 

The installation is straightforward.

The deployment lasts two hours. 

The licensing terms can range from subscription-based to perpetual, to annual, to tri-annual. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

The Symantec footprint in Pakistan was once very big, numbering 40,000 endpoints which were deployed by us and more than 20,000 by other partners in the banking sector, although now it is considerably smaller. 

The solution can be deployed both on-premises and on-cloud. 

At one point in time, we had 20 customers. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

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

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection for the workstations. It's desktop protection, basically. 

The auto-discovery capabilities are great. 

The solution offers very good security features and is comparable to Sophos. 

The solution is quite stable. 

Sophos's ransomware protection gives you some kind of comparative advantage over Symantec. Symantec needs to be better in this regard.

The monitoring capabilities could be further developed. For example, you get Sophos Central in Sophos. In Symantec, I don't know if there is an equivalent. You can actually manage and do deployment across the various geo-locations on every single point, however, Sophos is a cross-platform solution and Symantec is not. 

Sophos Central gives me a one-stop-shop on one page that allows me to monitor all activities going on in my network. Symantec doesn't have that.

The initial setup can be a bit complex.

The scalability could be a bit easier.

We're not too happy with the level of technical support we get.

The pricing is okay, however, it could be more competitive.

I've been using the solution for ten years at this point. It's been about a decade. We've used it for a long time. 

The solution is very stable. We have no complaints. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability of the product is decent. I'd rate the ease of scalability at a seven or eight out of ten.

The support hasn't been fantastic lately. It can be better. We're not very satisfied overall. They need to be more helpful and responsive. 

I use Symantec, however, I also use Sophos. I use Sophos for endpoint protection for my server. I use Symantec for my email workstations, et cetera.

For Symantec, it's sometimes a bit complex or difficult - especially when you're setting it up. It's not straightforward when you have to set it up, specifically from the server. On top of that, the administrative side is not a piece of cake. You have a lot of items you need to take care of. 

The pricing is decent. It falls within an acceptable range. However, if the goal is to draw more clients, it could be a bit less expensive. 

If you do a comparison between Symantec and Sophos, then you can easily see the comparative advantages Sophos has over Symantec. Symantec should study it in order to gain an edge in the industry and to better understand the areas to improve on, and what additional features to add.

I'd rate the product at an eight out of 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.

We use the solution as endpoint security.

The Sandboxing and ATP functionality does not integrate very well, improving this would be helpful. Additionally, having a single console that allows interaction with other security products would be great.

A lot of people have moved to their homes because of the pandemic and this has made endpoint security a crucial part of our protection against threats. Having full integration is very important for all the hardware to work together. If there is any strange network behaviour, all the hardware should work the first time to bring the security flaw forward to be actioned and solved. This only can happen if there are proper communication and integration with other hardware products.

I have been using the solution for approximately seven years.

I have been using the solution for a long while, it has been stable.

I have found the solution to be very scalable, we have 700 employees using the solution in our organization.

The customer service was good.

Before using this solution we used Trend Micro and McAfee. We have currently changed solutions and no longer use Symantec End-user Endpoint Security and we are back with Trend Micro.

The installation was very easy for us to manage, it was not a problem at all.

We used a partner to help us with the implementation and the full deployment took approximately one month. We currently have one administrator and a few engineers to manage the maintenance and deployment of the solution.

There are subscription costs, we typically purchase the annual subscription. There can be other expenses too, for example, we use CrowdStrike also as part of our policy.

We currently use Micro Trend because of our partnership company uses it with over 100 organizations.

I do not recommend the solution because we are using a different one currently.

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