Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

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 are using this solution for endpoint protection.

This solution has helped us because it is really useful for blocking all kinds of viruses.

The support for virus checking in containers is very useful.

We have also created policies to assist with blocking evasive applications.

We are also using the Symantec Messaging Gateway.

If we install a client's software in our location, such as Microsoft Office or Adobe reader, we would like to have these endpoints protected.

The solution is stable.

We have had some little issues and file problems when we are logging the calls through the technical team.

Sometimes, when we are creating a new policy, some of the clients are not being updated with the latest policy.

We have approximately one thousand users with this solution.

Technical support for this solution is good. We speak to the technical support team directly.

I started with the company after this solution was implemented.

The initial setup for this solution is easy. Not a problem.

Our deployment took less than fifteen minutes, and a single engineer is enough for the maintenance.

The Symantec technical team handled the implementation for us.

The licensing is calculated on a monthly basis, but we use a three-year renewal. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

They did evaluate other solutions including Sophos, ESET, McAfee, and Kaspersky. We did not find these as user-friendly.

The support is very good. It is easy to manage all of the clients and deploy new policies.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

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.

• Primary endpoint protection for our office. 

It was replaced with my MSP's contracted solution, but that's being replaced by our own solution.

It protected well enough, but we ran Malwarebytes in conjunction to help protect against zero-day exploits/malware issues that occasionally slipped through.

We were disappointed that we were stuck with its local admin server for so long when other solutions had cloud management.

• An easier management portal
• Setting up and managing profiles was overly complex
• An easier cloud management portal would be appreciated.

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.

Protection from viruses, malware, Trojans, and malicious files is most valuable. It is also good in terms of application control. I can control the type of external media that can be connected with endpoint devices and protect them from malicious files and devices such as USB.

I would like to be able to migrate to the cloud so that the end-users outside the company offices don't need a VPN to connect to the Symantec server to update the policies. They should be able to connect to the admin center directly through the internet to get updated policies.

There is some integration issue with the other security appliances or tools. Other hardware, firewall, or Network Detection and Response (NDR) solution vendors are not willing to integrate with Symantec. They only mention products from other vendors such as CrowdStrike and Carbon Black. Symantec is not there. Symantec should work on integration with products from other security vendors.

I have been using this solution for more than six years. I am currently using its latest version.

It is stable. I don't have any issues.

It is scalable. With on-prem, you have the network limitation. If I migrate to the cloud, it will be easy to scale. 

In terms of usage, currently, we have between 250 to 300 users.

I have not worked on any other solution.

Its initial setup was easy. It was done a long ago. The upgrades to a newer version might take two hours. If a client has any issues during the upgrade, they need to remove and start it again. Usually, it does not require a lot of support. It is straightforward.

Its price is reasonable.

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

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.