Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

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.

Its response time is the most valuable. It is very quick.

It would be perfect if it is capable of detecting or checking ransomware.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It has been stable so far.

It is scalable. We have around 300 users who use this solution. We don't have any plans to expand its usage.

I am not the contact point for technical support, so I can't say anything about their technical support.

We have been using Symantec since I joined this company.

Its initial setup is complex. I don't really handle the configuration, but it seems that its configuration is a bit complex. Its menu is not easy.

Its price should be reasonable.

I would recommend this product because it is lightweight and consumes fewer resources.
We are satisfied with this product.

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

We use it for protecting our endpoints from the latest signature-based threats. We have 75 users.

It is good for detecting signature-based viruses, and it is user friendly.

We are not satisfied with this solution. It needs a lot of improvements. It doesn't detect the most recent malware and unknown threats. With most of the users working from home these days, there is also a need for some extra security layer. That's why we are thinking of going for a better solution that will take care of all of our endpoints and work from home situation.

Symantec also has to work on EDR technology. Vendors like Palo Alto and Cisco are coming with their own intelligence and cloud infrastructure in which unknown threats are regularly watched and monitored, and they are reported to the admin.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is stable.

I don't know how their support is these days. Their support used to be good in the past before they were taken over by Broadcom.

The initial setup was straightforward. There was nothing complex. The deployment took almost two days.

We used an integrator and reseller for this.

I would not recommend this solution because of the security concerns and the lack of features that other vendors are providing. Technology is growing day by day, and a lot of other solutions are providing patching for vulnerabilities and other stuff. We are going to move to some other vendor and use the endpoint detection and response (EDR) technology.

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

We primarily use the solution for our routing in our corporate office and have it installed all over that place.

The solution works very well. It has a good IP signature and network.

The product offers a lot of very useful features.

It's good for large organizations. It's able to handle a lot of users.  

The solution is very difficult to uninstall. There isn't really a way to uninstall the product at all, which is quite a headache.

It's also complicated to upgrade the product. They need to make these aspects much easier.

Sometimes the solution will just randomly stop working. I'm not sure why this happens.

The licensing aspects of the solution could be improved.

I haven't used the product for about five or six months at this point, so it's hard to say which features they are missing and new items may have been added since then.

I've been using the solution for the last eight to ten years.

We've never had issues with stability. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The stability is quite good and it's very reliable.

We've been in touch with technical support and have found them to be responsive and knowledgeable. We're satisfied with their level of service.

I was involved in the original setup and implementation of the solution and I found it to be quite straightforward. It's not too complex. However, it does take a good amount of time, and it would be better if it was faster or easier.

The solution needs better licensing options.

I'd recommend the solution. If the company finds that Symantec fits their requirements, they should choose it. The product offers a lot of great features.

Overall, I'd rate the solution six out of ten. If they had a way to easily uninstall the product and if we could figure out why it suddenly stops working occasionally, I'd rate it a bit higher.

We just use it mainly for workstation protection.

The anti-virus and firewall policies are the most valuable features of this solution.

I think it's a good product but we've had some problems with their support and service. From the beginning of this year, I haven't been able to reach their support. 

Last year, the support wasn't bad but this year I wanted to renew their license, but I can't reach anybody from their company.

We don't have any plans to replace them but we haven't been able to renew a license. 

Sometimes there is a conflict with Windows 10 updates. There is a Windows server or Windows workstation startup after installing the new Windows update. We contacted Microsoft and they said the device caused an issue.

We have been using Symantec for eight years.

We were using some traditional licensing. Our company is a nonprofit, so we have a different price pricing model.

The most important thing is the cloud management. I would like to see behavior analysis. These two things will be most valuable to the user.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

We basically use the solution for endpoint protection.

The single-pane management is the solution's most valuable feature. It makes administrative control very easy.

I'm not sure if the solution can improve that much more. Right now, for me, I'm asking the question "How does Defender stack up against the product we're paying for?" 

Defender comes with Windows 10 and we have Windows 10 throughout our environment. With that being free, we're asking ourselves why we would pay for another solution that's sort of redundant.

I know they were just bought out by Broadcom and there have been some difficulties with Broadcom as far as getting license renewals, etc. Mostly, due to the fact that it's confusing, even for the vendor, people are turned off by it. The vendors are telling us that it can take weeks for them to get a renewal quote, nevermind the actual renewal.

I've actually had to call Symantec myself because my vendor said "Well, we're going to try it, but it's going to take weeks to get an answer from them." In the end, it was internally expedited and I got the answer the next day, however, that's an exception, not the rule.

I know a number of people that have left just because of the fact that when Broadcom first bought them, and their licensing ran out, the company provided a temporary license and then another instead of dealing with a proper license. One had to argue for another renewal or for them to promise to give them the proper license in the third month. He finally got it, however, it took three months of begging. That doesn't seem right.

I've been using the solution for about ten years at this point. It's been at least a decade.

From a usage point, it's very stable. With the new company Broadcom, that's taken them over, I know they've had some shakeups. My concern is whether or not Broadcom continues to support it going forward. If they do I'm fine with it. If they don't or they start having failures in their support, then I'm going to have to leave them.

I don't know enough about the scalability to really have an opinion on it, one way or the other. I wouldn't be able to comment on it.

Currently, we have anywhere between 100 and 500 users on the solution.

I've used technical support in the past. They've always been okay. We've had very few incidents where we've had to have to call them and ask for assistance. Out of those incidents, in my recollection, the last one was probably a couple of years ago, but those incidents were quickly resolved. 

I would say, overall, we've been satisfied with their level of service in the past.

The initial setup wasn't complex at all. It was very straightforward. However, in our case, the initial set up was 10 years ago. Its been a very, very long time. I can't speak to what it is like right now. It may be different, or just as easy.

We're a not-for-profit. We do get exceptionally good pricing, however, I cannot say exactly what the costs are for us on a monthly or yearly basis.

We're just a Symantec customer. We aren't a partner or reseller.

We're currently using the latest version of the solution.

Overall, we're pretty happy with the product.

I would tell other organizations considering implementing it that it's a great tool. My concern again would be if Broadcom doesn't really invest in the product's success. Often companies will buy out their competitors and/or they'll buy out a product line thinking that they want to get into that field. Then they turn around and they dump the product line after a year or two and decide, "Well, I guess we don't want to go this way," or they are just buying it out to get rid of the competition.

My concern lies in the new company failing to come through on updates or the delivery of the service. It remains to be seen whether they're going to fail, or whether they're going to continue to support the product and keep it as a high-end solution.

So far I've been very happy with them. I would rate them overall as fairly high, maybe a nine out of ten. The only thing that worries me as a user is whether or not Broadcom is going to continue to support them going forward.

The primary use cases of this solution are for antivirus protection, anti-malware protection, and personal firewall protection.

The most valuable feature is the automated updating. They send out updates on a regular basis. All that we have to do is to set it up on our server to download it, then it is distributed to the individual endpoints. 

Individual machines could do the same thing but it would only be on that one machine.

It seems to block things fairly well.

This solution is resource-heavy. It uses up a lot of memory and a lot of disk space. It demands a lot of resources. There have been improvements with Windows 10 and it's not as problematic.

The firewall capabilities did not seem to do what the documentation claimed it should do.

Port control is one of the things that this solution does do, but it does it on a higher level. When I say port control, it's things like USB ports that can be used to plug things in. For example, if you plug in a wired mouse or a wireless mouse then you want the flexibility to be able to do that. It should be able to identify that it is a mouse and let you use it. 

By the same token, if you plug in a 1 TB external hard drive, that should be shut down unless it is one of your hard drives. The only way to detect that would be to have units with their own serial number and the system programmed in such a way that it would recognize it.

Seagate for example has many external drives. They have serial numbers on those drives, and we don't want to just set it up for use by any Seagate drive. We want our external drives to be used, only. We don't want to have to go purchase Seagate drives to have it work. We want them to get it from us, that we know works, and have them return it to us.

I would like to see a check-in system where you can log which specific drives your staff can access and what they cannot access.

I have been using this solution for approximately six to eight years.

With Windows 7 there were some stability issues. The environment handled resources differently. You could have a fairly resource-heavy solution that would make the system unusable.

Windows 10 improved stability quite a bit.

Technical support is good, but when they sold to Broadcom, even though people were paying for the support they were not getting it.

This product is more reasonably priced than some competing solutions.

We spoke with some vendors who recommended Sophos and Crowdstrike. While Crowdstrike has some incredible features, it's four times the cost.

Sophos is supposed to handle our needs.

Crowdstrike could handle our needs and then some, but we couldn't justify the cost.

Within the last three or four months, we decided to drop Symantec on its own because of some issues we have with the company. We will be using Sophos.

Symantec sold off their enterprise solutions, which this product falls into. When they sold it. they sold it to a company that has purchased software packages in the past and not done very well with it. They are a hardware company trying to expand into the software realm. This is another example of a hardware company that thinks that they can do software and they can't.

We were told that Broadcom was ignoring all of their customers that were below a certain level of license purchases. Some of the customers were calling wanting to renew their product and they were having to wait a month or six weeks just to get a quote.

We did our own research and confirmed that what we were told was true and decided that we were not going to renew and went to Sophos.

If you are going with Symantec, definitely purchase the 24/7 tech support. They will help you with just about everything, or at least they used to. I am not sure if that still applies to Broadcom.

They now offer the option to put it into the cloud for the management capabilities. That way the endpoints, the individual laptops, and desktop computers are actually going to a website to get the management, the new definitions, and new configurations. This option should seriously be considered. 

I am not recommending that they do that but they should at least seriously consider it, because, while having that one server to do that one thing is fairly important, it would be nice to not have to deal with it.

For what we were using this product for it was pretty good, but there were some things that we didn't like, and some things that we would have like to take advantage of.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is as an antivirus.

Some important features that are included are the built-in firewall and device control.

They are lacking the visibility that you get in a heuristical, next-generation AI product. 

In the next release, I would like to see any of the features the next generation antivirus and GAV products have, especially the heuristical and the behavioral analysis. It looks at the behavior of the endpoint, and that is how it identifies something that is not to your normal pattern of working.

I have been using it for a year.

There are no issues in rolling it out. Rather, it's more in reporting.

One time we had an issue with knowing a true endpoint time and the reporting. There was a conflict with what was in the console. I think that it was a glitch in verifying the device count.

I have not contacted technical support.

It's a great product at what it does, but it's lacking the advanced malware detection capabilities.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Some of the features that were important were a built-in firewall and device control.

They lack the visibility you get in a heuristical, artificial, AI type of product, like a next-gen antivirus. They lack the visibility of what's happening that your next-gen solutions offer.

I have been using Symantec for a year. My company has had it for a while, but I don't know exactly how long.

My staff has used support but I personally have not. 

I don't think there's really any issues rolling it out, it's more in the reporting. The one time we had an issue was with knowing a true endpoint count and the reporting. There was a conflict with what was in the console, I think it was a glitch.

In the next release, I would like to see any of the features that the next generation antivirus and GAV products have, like the heuristical, the behavioral analysis. Because it will set the behavior of the endpoint and that's how it identifies something that is not normal to your pattern of working.

I will give it a seven out of ten because it's a great product at what it does, but it's lacking the advanced malware detection capabilities.

It's good at detecting signature-based stuff and stopping that, but what Symantec misses, CrowdStrike would pick up. I'm hoping to move CrowdStrike 100% to get rid of Symantec.

It needs to die. In my opinion, Symantec was a really great security company, 10, 15 years ago. They went out, they bought all the great tools and then they never did anything with them. So they've just fallen behind and there's nothing that's going to work now to bring them back up the date that's going to regain user confidence.

In order to improve, I would like to see active remediation tools, where I can connect to systems and do things directly on the system without having to leave the tool.

I have been using this solution for five years. 

I would rate it a two out of ten because I think it is outdated, ancient, lacking the features that the current solutions have. And unfortunately, I think it's being passed around so much that Symantec's now Broadcom, that nobody's given it any of the attention or the love that it needs to keep it a viable solution. Ultimately, I think it's going to die.