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.

I find QRadar and the Active Threat Defense the most valuable. The ATP, Active Theft Protection, is very good. They've got very solid detection rates from P2. Those and some of the other programs are very valuable.

The Centralized Management could be improved. The deployment is very limited. They can improve on reporting as well. If they can improve threat incident analysis, that would be great.

The solution itself is pretty comprehensive at this stage, and the features that we would like to be added to these are available as separate purchases, so I wouldn't that there's anything new that I need in there, they probably covered all the bases at this stage.

The solution is one hundred percent stable.

The solution is completely scalable.

Technical support is okay. I'm not completely satisfied with them.

The initial setup is pretty simple. I believe that the tools that are available to do the deployment are not up to standard as compared to some of the other products, and we deal with all the other products. We know exactly what is available and what is possible. Compared to the other products available, Symantec is lacking in that department.

I've been using this solution for more than twenty years. While Endpoint Protection has only existed for the past couple of years, the Symantec antivirus, I have been working with more than twenty years. It used to be Symantec antivirus and then it changed a couple of years ago to Symantec Endpoint Protection. So, we've been using it obviously since its inception.

In terms of advice to others, I would say to partner with somebody that actually knows how the product is implemented and configured. Get a partner that has the technical knowledge and can give onsite technical guidance, or support. All of these Endpoint Protection solutions are getting very complex. It's not a simple antivirus that you just simply deploy to get a few viruses. It is becoming a very complex thing to implement. People buy the products, and they don't know how to implement them, so they go and slap them there and then they get burnt and they get attacked by a virus or threat or something. They get their fingers burnt and then they say the product is rubbish, but it's not the product, it's that the product was not correctly configured. So, when buying a product, you need to partner with someone who can actually provide you with support on the product.

They're one of my favorite products and we're actively working with Kaspersky, McAfee, Sophos, ESET, and Sophos. Palo Alto is my favorite firewall. But on the antivirus or Endpoint Protection side, I have the greatest of confidence in Symantec. It's something I would use at home or in the business. That's what we use to protect the business, so it's probably the product I have the most confidence in.

I would rate this solution ten 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 use this product for threat detection.

This solution is just another antivirus. Whether it actually works, nobody knows. If it finds something then it's great but if it misses something then we just don't know about it.

If this product detects a threat then it will provide an alert.

This product uses a signature-based detection system, which is something that we want to move away from. The current buzz is about next-generation antivirus, which is user-behavior-based protection rather than signature-based. Behavior-based detection relies on patterns of behavior to search for suspicious activity.

The problem with a signature-based solution is that if the signature is in the file then it catches the threat. If it's not there, then it doesn't. These days, when a virus infects the system, it doesn't advertise the fact. The only way you figure it out is if something malicious happens, such as ransomware. With a behavior-based detection system, you can identify a threat before it does something malicious.

There is no local support for Symantec products in Hong Kong.

I have been working with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security since I joined the organization, which is less than a year. The company has been using it for longer.

The stability is fine.

We don't have much concern about scalability because we don't expand a lot. It isn't something that we considered or looked into.

We have 30 users in the company.

We wanted to reach technical support but it was a very complicated process. There is no local Broadcom support in Hong Kong.

The whole process needs to be improved. You have to log in, put in some verification information that includes a lot of credentials. Then, they want you to upload your license information before you can log a ticket. Overall, it's not a nice process.

It takes a really long time to get support and when you're waiting for something to be fixed, it's not like you have all of the time in the world.

I would rate the technical support a one out of ten.

The implementation and deployment were completed before I joined the company. For maintenance, one person working from time to time is enough. Usually, there is not much to do.

This is not the cheapest product and I know others that are most cost-effective, although it is difficult to compare because it depends on the features.

We are currently looking for other products that we can replace Symantec with. Within the next nine months, we will have evaluated several products and selected one that is more suitable.

We are switching because Symantec has been sold to Broadcom, and Broadcom no longer has an office in Hong Kong. We want to have a product that has local support available.

One of the reasons that we are changing products is because we want behavior-based detection instead of something that is signature-based. Symantec has products that fit these requirements but we won't be considering them because of the support issues. We won't be looking any further into Symantec products and don't plan on comparing any of the features that they have.

My advice for anybody who is looking to implement the Symantec product is to ensure that they have support available. They should check to make sure that there is somebody contactable in case of a problem.

For what we are paying for, which is a signature-based antivirus, the product is fine. In the future, Symantec needs to continue moving with the trend in the rest of the antivirus or anti-malware world. They need behavior-based detection, sandboxing, user-based, and other advanced features. Signature-based detection will always be there because it's fast. However, it needs other features to detect more advanced threats.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

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.

I can push the client out. All the antivirus updates are managed from a single central point, and it just works. 

It would be interesting if Symantec Endpoint protection could also manage Windows Defender. If they were to add a feature, it would be nice if you could see the Symantec client and the Windows Defender client in case you choose to deploy both.

I have been using this solution for 15 years.

We haven't had any problems with it.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security an eight out of 10. We haven't had any problems with it. It just works.

• 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 used to control some device access and protect endpoints.

Because of organizational changes, I dislike the entire situation. The solution has become quite complicated since Broadcom acquired Symantec, and we no longer sell it or try not to sell it.

There have been so many changes since the Broadcom acquisition, that we feel like abandoning the product.

It now has a lack of support, and they could be more knowledgeable.

We have been selling Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for more than eight years.

It is deployed both on-premises and on the cloud.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is a stable solution.

We have three or four clients who still use this solution.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is bad because the support has changed.

Technical support could be more knowledgeable.

We are doing more with Forcepoint. We are not doing as much as we used to with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security.

The installation is straightforward, it's quite simple.

We require a team of two engineers to deploy and maintain this solution.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

The price could be lower.

I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

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

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.