We compared Symantec Endpoint Security and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on our users' reviews across several parameters.
Symantec Endpoint Security is praised for its robust protection, advanced threat detection, and comprehensive coverage, but users suggest improvements in integration, interface, scanning speed, and resource utilization. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint receives high ratings for its security measures, integration, interface, and customer support, but users note the need for enhancements in system performance, user interface, and threat detection capabilities. Pricing for both products is deemed justified, with positive ROI reported by users.
Features: Symantec Endpoint Security stands out for its advanced threat detection and comprehensive security functionalities. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is valued for its seamless integration with other Microsoft products, efficient threat detection, and user-friendly interface.
Pricing and ROI: Symantec Endpoint Security's setup cost is justified by its strong features, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint offers competitive pricing with a reasonable setup cost. Symantec's licensing is flexible, while Microsoft's process is user-friendly. Symantec Endpoint Security users praised its positive ROI, citing good value, cyber threat prevention, and time/resource savings. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint also delivers strong ROI, with users reporting valuable outcomes.
Room for Improvement: Symantec Endpoint Security has room for improvement in integration with security tools, interface usability, scanning speed, and resource utilization. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint could enhance system performance, user interface, threat detection, scanning efficiency, and advanced threat prevention.
Deployment and customer support: Users find that setting up Symantec Endpoint Security takes longer than setting up Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. Some users of Microsoft Defender reported varying durations, with some needing three months for deployment and a week for setup, while others required only a week for both. Symantec Endpoint Security offers responsive and efficient customer support, praised for prompt solutions to technical issues. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is highly praised for its knowledgeable support team and effective assistance.
The summary above is based on 208 interviews we conducted recently with Symantec Endpoint Security and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"The patch management is very easy, as it can be done automatically or added to a schedule."
"The most valuable feature is ransomware protection, which can detect malicious activity from IPs or a malicious payload in DLLs, or other things that can corrupt the system."
"We like that it has a free version available."
"Defender works in the background monitoring the traffic for viruses."
"You have endpoint security to keep your devices safe. That's the feature that we're interested in."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is beneficial because we are using Microsoft Windows and all the core solutions are made by Microsoft, such as the authentic platform, operating system, and antivirus protection. It is a heterogeneous environment. We had to use third-party solutions before and update everything separately. For example, the policy for antivirus. With Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, when Microsoft Windows receives updates it will update with it. This is one main advantage of this solution."
"The ransomware and malware protection is the most valuable feature."
"The solution has an easy-to-use interface, is always updated, and is user-friendly."
"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."
"The performance of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is very good. It does not slow down the computer like other solutions."
"Threat protection has always worked well."
"Symantec ATP provides quite a good overview of how threats have spread within the company."
"ATP is really impressive, and with EDR, it is the best solution I have ever known."
"Their threat protection is very good. We are managing a good number of users thanks to the solution and we are pretty satisfied with it."
"The solution is completely scalable."
"The product blocks computer viruses."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Detections could be improved."
"The solution is not stable."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The support needs improvement."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"The solution has minimal customization options, especially compared to Mandiant, so we want to see more scope for customization. A single portal for customization would also be a welcome addition."
"The reporting in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint should improve. The solution has limited features."
"It makes your Surface devices hot. It is resource-intensive. It strains your CPU, not more than other file scanners around, but it also does a lot more. When you are transmitting files or data, it is continuously scanning the traffic and analyzing it bit by bit to see what's going on, and that, of course, is costly in terms of CPU. It is CPU intensive, and if you are on battery, it drains your battery fast. That's the only drawback that it has."
"Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can improve by providing more and different types of reports."
"The scalability could be improved - I would rate it between a seven and an eight."
"It should support non-Windows products better. Microsoft is now one of the leading vendors in the security area. So, they should be product-independent."
"The scanning is slow when it is working with incoming emails."
"Sometimes, there are different skews. In a basic skew, they should have basic log analysis without the need to integrate with any third-party or SIEM solutions, like Sentinel. This would make it so much easier for users who don't have log collection or log analysis."
"The reporting could be improved."
"The Sandboxing and ATP functionality does not integrate very well, improving this would be helpful."
"The enterprise edition does not report attacks on external devices."
"It would be nice to see more antivirus features for USB control."
"Installation of the tool on a workstation requires some technical knowledge, which could be more straightforward."
"Symantec's application security module needs some improvement. You need to create a lot of fingerprints for application security. For instance, let's say I have different brands of ATMs in my environment, like Wincor and NCR. I use GRG to deploy an application control to whitelist some applications. I have to get the exact image of the different models of ATMs. When I tested in the past, some machines would not connect to the server without that."
"I think the CPU dependence should be enhanced."
"There are a few negative points. They should separate the feature for each separate solution for mobile devices. The second one is about the price, it's expensive. Finally, the third would be the complexity of implementation."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Security is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 140 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Symantec Endpoint Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Security writes "The solution has given us visibility into compliance within our whole system and helped us ensure everything is updated". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Microsoft Intune, whereas Symantec Endpoint Security is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Symantec Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.