Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

I use Symantec Endpoint Security for its endpoint detection and response capabilities. It is primarily used to scan for malicious and suspicious files and application control. We have policies for weekly and daily basis scanning.

Symantec Endpoint Security offers many valuable features, such as file explosion, application learning, DLP, injection detection, and EDR solutions for traffic control. 

The platform provides traffic scanning, system scanning, malicious file scanning, troubleshooting, and EventViewer facilities. The tool is easy to deploy and operate.

The areas that need improvement include scanning issues, application control issues, and the detection of malicious files. Device management is not very good and I am not enabling it in my organization due to security reasons.

I have used Endpoint Security for five years.

Symantec offers high stability.

The solution has high scalability.

Customer service and support are very good, rating ten out of ten.

Positive

Symantec was very good at its time, but due to issues with detection and scanning, we are considering changing to another platform.

The initial setup was easy for me.

The pricing is very low compared to other companies like SentinelOne and others. Sentinel is more expensive than Symantec.

Symantec's solution rates eight out of ten. 

While it provides great features and stability, we find SentinelOne to be better, especially for its console operations, security scanning, and detection.

The use case for the solution was basically this: any computer or anything used for any sort of official business needed to have endpoint protection and needed to have some sort of antivirus protection. The thing was somewhat more than just an antivirus, it also included a firewall that operated in addition to the Windows or Mac firewall.

The university policy basically required that all endpoint devices used for official business have to meet certain requirements and one of them was to have an antivirus.

The solution probably caught some malware a certain percentage of the time and that helped the organization. By the time we abandoned it, it was actually less effective, at least on Windows 10 machines, than the built-in antivirus that you get with the Windows 10 Defender Antivirus. It became, in the end, sort-of a liability.

It also became a liability when the company was sold to Broadcom. The name is actually different now. I don't think it's called Symantec Endpoint Protection. It's called Broadcom Endpoint Protection. We had a very difficult time even getting in touch with the technical support from that company, especially after Symantec was sold. It wasn't a very robust solution.

The solution detects malware very well.

It wasn't a very good solution overall, which is why we ended up replacing it.

Most organizations are choosing a next-gen antivirus, one that's based on artificial intelligence. Symantec Endpoint Protection was one of those legacy products that have been around forever. Symantec was a spinoff from Norton. Norton Antivirus was one of the very first antiviruses to come out in the 1980s. Symantec was very highly rated at one point in its life. It never really caught on to the new trends and antivirus protection. And so it still relied on things like a database of virus signatures that would need to get downloaded and then files would be checked for those signatures.

Modern antiviruses don't do that. They're based on behavior. They're based on intelligence algorithms. They're honed by artificial intelligence and machine learning from data collected all over the world. And so for that reason, the next-gen antiviruses are much more efficient at detecting viruses. They also take up a lighter load on the computer.

Next-generation is behavior-based detection rather than signature-based detection. Symantec tried to be a hybrid between the two. It had a behavior-based component called SONAR, however, it was still mostly a signature-based software antivirus application. For that reason, you can never keep up with all the mutations and viruses, and you can't keep up with malicious behavior that isn't based on viruses. Things like downloaded PowerShell scripts, things that computers can do with the components that they already have without needing to put any virus on the computer. A lot of malicious attacks, government-backed attacks, don't use any kind of foreign software. They take advantage of vulnerabilities within existing operating systems like Microsoft Windows or the various versions of Linux or the Mac operating system. They don't need to put additional software on the computer to compromise them.

That, in a nutshell, is why we switched to a next-gen antivirus. Next-gen antiviruses have probably been around for about five or six years. Some of the old companies made the transition to them seamlessly. Symantec didn't. It remained wedded to the old technology and that made it, you could say, a has-been.

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

The stability was not the best. There were times when antivirus updates broke it. It wasn't necessarily self-updating - at least, not in terms of the virus signatures. It updated in terms of the executable files. Therefore, when Windows updates would come out, they often couldn't be installed, or the computer would hang due to the fact that the updates weren't compatible with the antivirus. I give it pretty poor score for robustness.

It was scalable just due to the fact that had to be installed individually on individual computers. For the unmanaged workstations, it was as scalable as you wanted it to be. There was a new download and a new install on a new computer. There are no limits on that. I'm not sure, however, how true that is, as it wasn't within my area of responsibility. I'm not sure if the managed work points overloaded the servers that were meant to monitor them. I don't think that was the case. The scalability was probably pretty good there too. I never heard any complaints about it not being scalable.

We likely had between 10,000 and 20,000 users on it. The roles would include, since it's a university, students, faculty, staff, and researchers. That pretty much covered the type of people that work at a university.

We don't plan to increase usage as we've completely phased out the solution.

Once Symantec was sold to Broadcom, it became very difficult to reach out to technical support, and they just stopped being responsive. By the end, we were very unhappy with their level of support.

I've been at the organization for 21, 22 years. Originally, before we had Symantec, it was McAfee antivirus. We had that up until maybe about 2010 or so. Now, we are using CrowdStrike Falcon.

The initial setup was not complex. It was simple.

The deployment was always ongoing due to the fact that, as a university with something like 16,000 employees, computers were getting bought and repurposed all the time. The initial rollout was in fact not a managed version of the antivirus. It was just a standalone version that users could download from a website when they provided their credentials. After that, they would just double click on a downloaded file and run the installer and they'd have the antivirus.

However, it was completely unmonitored. The antivirus program on their computer was not sending its data anywhere. It couldn't be helped by anyone remotely to do its job of protecting the computer.

Therefore, almost all organizations now want to have a managed antivirus solution where there's software installed on the computer, but it communicates with the cloud, and IT administrators at the organization can control this behavior and learn from it.

In terms of the staff required to handle the deployment and maintenance, there was probably the equivalent of maybe two to three full-time staff that were dedicated to antivirus endpoint protection issues. 

We handled everything ourselves in-house. We didn't need the help of a consultant or integrator.

We pay on a yearly basis. However, I'm unsure of the exact amount.

We did evaluate a number of other vendors. We entertained some RFPs and we did testing on four other competing products. There was one other competitor that was close. The main factor that tilted us toward CrowdStrike is that they did make a last-minute significant cut in price to their offer. I think they reduced it by something like 30% or 40%.

CrowdStrike has been in the business longer and is a bigger company than the runner up as well. To us, that mattered. If there is winnowing out of competitors, if the market actually shrinks and there are a few big players in five years, we want to be sure that we're with one of the big players that are going to make it.

The solution is a kind of a mix between an on-premise managed server that managing some machines, and other machines just had an unmanaged client that was distributed to students. It's not actually a cloud, it's a server. It's an on-premises server. It's not a cloud-based server that is being used. The antiviruses report to the server and policies can be set on the server.

I'd advise users to be aware that there are better solutions out there than this. I've learned that technology can change and your solution may be great now, but in a few years, it may drop to the bottom of the barrel. That's what happened here.

I'd rate the solution one out of ten. In order to get any sort of higher rating, they would need to start it over again from scratch. Instead of trying to make a legacy product better, they should abandon it and invent a new product.

We are using Symantec Security for the server and the client. For the server, we are using Symantec Data Center Security (DCS), and for the client, we are using Symantec Endpoint Security.

We work with all deployment models. We have cloud and on-premises deployments, and we also have hybrid deployments. The cloud provider varies based on the customer, but mostly, our customers have AWS and Azure.

We are using it on 1,600 computers. All the systems and servers are protected with the Symantec solution. Our environment has an uptime of 99.9% because we never had any attack or issue related to viruses. There is zero downtime.

It works very smoothly. There is no high utilization of the hardware.

EDR and ATP features are most valuable.

Its interface needs improvement. Its interface is very old, and it needs a new look. Other solutions, such as Sophos and BitDefender, have a better and more modern interface, whereas Symantec has had the same interface for a while. There has been no enhancement in the interface. They should update and provide a better interface in 2022 for a better user experience for their customers.

Currently, Symantec's EDR functionality is expensive, and it is an add-on, whereas other devices have built-in EDR functionality. It would be beneficial for customers if Symantec does the same.

Their support also needs to be improved.

I have been using this solution for 11 years.

It is average in terms of stability. It works fine, but when we do the upgrades, there are stability issues.

Its scalability is very good. We are able to scale up to 10,000 users, and it is working fine. There are no issues with it. 

We are working with government institutions and corporations in various industries. We are also working with educational institutes. It is being used in all sectors. 

We don't have any plans to increase its usage as of now.

We have been a Symantec partner for a long time. Since the Broadcom takeover, we have been facing many issues with support. In the last three years, we have not received proper support from them. We have had the worst experience with their support. They don’t understand the issue. I explain the problem, and after two or three days, they again come back asking for the log. I would rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

We didn't use any other solution previously. We have been using only Symantec. It is the best solution for us and our customers.

I'm involved in its implementation from the start to the end, which includes project discussions, deployment, and handover. I work with my colleagues and provide guidance on what to perform, how to perform, and how to configure policies.

The deployment depends on the environment of a customer. Some customers have a small environment with 100 to 200 users. In such a case, the deployment is simple, and there’s no complexity. If a customer has 5,000 to 10,000 users, and they are working from different locations, requiring server configuration at different locations across the world, it gets complex. We have done successful implementation in complex as well as simple scenarios. 

The deployment duration varies based on the number of users. Usually, one to two days are enough. The number of people required for deployment also varies based on the customer environment.

We create a document for implementation, and when we are handling a large implementation with 5,000 users, we deploy the 100 or 200 from our side, and then we guide and train the customer's engineer who takes care of the remaining deployments.

For 5,000 users, 5 to 10 people are enough to handle the deployment and maintenance. They all have different roles. For example, one of them handles the policies, and one of them takes care of the implementation. Similarly, one of them works with the updates. They take care of all the functions.

We do evaluate other solutions when a customer asks for a comparison with another solution, such as Sophos. We then need to do a PoC in the customer environment.

I would strongly recommend this product. It is better than all other antivirus products. It is a brilliant product when it comes to functions or features. There is no doubt about its antivirus capability. It is far better than other products, but they need to focus on its UI.

Overall, it is a very good product. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The use case is end-user laptop protection.

Customers can use it to protect endpoints, both laptops on the network and off the network. This is the beauty of the tool. Symantec installs an agent on the laptop itself, ensuring protection even when users are offline.

Moreover, the threat detection capabilities of Symantec have evolved to meet emerging security challenges. Symantec has a huge database of threat intelligence solutions. We receive very regular updates. It seems like they're very consistent. This means once an event happens somewhere (from the web or dark web), it's included immediately in its threat intelligence, and every other user will benefit from this update.

It has centralized management, product intelligence, is very easy to deploy, regularly updated with the latest virus and threat definitions, and has very good technical support.

Symantec have everything – documentation, videos, data sheets. That should be on the list of positive things.

Symantec could improve the learning resources to make the initial deployment smoother. It could become more popular with training because the initial deployment requires some experience. Sometimes, we don't find the necessary experience. They need to make their model more popular.

We provide it as a service. For more than five years now, since 2019.

Overall, I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. It remains stable once deployed. We never touch the setup again. 

It is very scalable. We once deployed it for a client of 5,000 end users. 

When it was directly with Symantec, the technical support was perfect. After Broadcom acquired Symantec, the level of technical support dropped. It wasn't the same as before.

It could be more responsive. They should go back to having responsive and highly knowledgeable teams. They were almost like that, but after the Broadcom acquisition, there were noticeable changes.

It's very straightforward because it uses centralized management. You don't need a very complex infrastructure.

Depending on the environment, it takes us at least five days and, at most, fifteen days.  

It can be deployed both on cloud and on-premises. 

The ROI is very good. Once deployed, you don't need a lot of skilled administrators to manage it. It's alert-based, so if you don't have an alert, you don't need to do anything. You don't need someone monitoring the screen 24/7.

The licensing is okay.  Symantec has a very granular licensing model, so you only buy what you need.

It's similar to other competitors. I don't see them as being higher or lower than others in terms of pricing.

There are other options, but we haven't fully evaluated them due to our large deployment. We have more than 5,000 users, so we would need a very good reason to change.

First, define your use cases perfectly. Symantec is a license-based product, and if you don't know exactly what your requirements are, you might purchase unnecessary licenses.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

Symantec adds a huge security layer to the company. We can protect any endpoint, on or off the network. If someone's working from a coffee shop, for example, they're still protected. It is a huge feature. This reduces risk and improves the company's security posture.

My primary use case is malware protection. I also use it for device control, application control, and more. We are a financial institution.

The stability of this product has improved the way our organization functions. There is little maintenance, and it doesn't take long to install or uninstall. Once it is configured correctly, there is little chance of it failing.

This means that we have more of our technical staff available to work on other problems that occur.

The most valuable feature is the proactive malware scanning capability.

When you are performing simple tasks, it is not as demanding on resources as compared to other security products. This is an aspect that I like.

The application and device control functionality is good. We are able to see which applications are installed using the product management dashboard. This gives us the ability to monitor workstations, including which applications they have in which tabs.

There are extensions available, such as the Browser extension, to deal with specific types of attacks. This helps to protect against hackers. I have tested it with samples and it protects the system well.

The interface is simple to use.

One issue that comes to mind is that there is no way of specifying categories that the firewall should block. It is able to block specific URLs but other solutions, such as Kaspersky, allow you to block access by specifying a category.

It would be helpful if this product provided patch management functionality.

Compared to Kaspersky, the reporting features are not rich. Overall, the reporting capability needs to be improved.

I have been working with Symantec Endpoint Security for between 12 and 18 months.

This is a very stable product. It is the feature that I like most about the product because when we were using other ones, we had failures. With this solution, there is no frequent failure of the components.

For example, in other products that we've used, the virus definitions didn't update and systems were compromised because of it.

We have approximately 3,000 users that are protected by this solution. We add branches and more computers weekly, and we don't have problems doing so.

We were able to easily integrate with Active Directory using the Symantec Manager, so I would say it's very scalable.

As we add more branches, our usage of the product will continue to increase.

We have not been in direct contact with Symantec technical support.

The training and documentation that they provide are helpful. There is a good amount of documentation that helped to provide us with a complete picture of the product. It's nice, neat, and easy to understand.

Prior to Symantec, we used a solution by Kaspersky.

We use other anti-virus products and this one is less resource intensive and more stable than the others. It is also simpler to use.

Symantec Web Security Service (WSS) has some good features that I wish were in this product. Unfortunately, it is another subscription.

It does not take long to install this solution.

Unfortunately, the order that we followed was not recommended. We just deployed and then obtained subscriptions after that. This is not a recommended approach for deployment. However, we have a good partner and a good support team.

Due to our limited bandwidth, we had to install manually rather than use the web-based deployment. This meant that it took us longer because we had to visit each of the physical workstations. In total, it took approximately two months to deploy.

We deployed the solution ourselves. There were seven or eight people io the team and different staff members were given different duties. All of them are system administrators.

We have three people that handle the maintenance. They monitor the dashboard for possible compromises, and our specialists have to use the device protection and application controls.

There are also tasks related to reporting issues that arise during monitoring, including those concerning possible attacks or infections. One of the managers in our IT staff is responsible for updating the definitions that we get from Symantec.

There was an incident where we had problems with a password and we had difficulty recovering it. We contacted our local partner and I think they contacted Symantec. After that, we recovered the password. That was the only maintenance-related problem that we had.

The pricing was one of the factors that led us to choose this product.

That said, I was not the decision maker. I simply proposed it to our manager.

When our subscription to Kaspersky ended, we were tasked with comparing features between different solutions. The three options we considered were Symantec, Kaspersky, and Sophos.

One of the things that we liked about Symantec is the low resource utilization. I am not the person who completed the analysis but I know that the fact it is lightweight was one factor.

We liked the functionality that Sophos provided but the deployment scenario functionality was not useful for the workstations in our environment. It involved deploying the dashboard to workstations in the cloud, which is not our preferred approach.

Kaspersky has richer reporting capabilities. This is an area that could be enhanced in our Symantec solution.

We deployed the product one and a half years ago, and we received training to configure and maintain it. It was recommended that we complete our training in terms of policies, which is something that we also did. Once that was finished, we experienced the stability and good features that the product provides.

This is a product that I have recommended for use in another company. I have been told that after they adopted it, they were pleased with the fact it consumes fewer resources than their previous solutions. They manage it from the cloud.

Currently, I am referring another company to this product and my understanding is that they're going to implement it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our client uses Endpoint Security at a school for antivirus protection. For example, if someone plugs in a USB on a classroom computer, Endpoint Security protects the network from infection. We have around 35 classrooms and eight teachers per class, so that's about 280 people.

The school does not use Endpoint Security to its full potential. The use case is basic. For example, it isn't being used to block stealth techniques. Sophos Firewall handles those kinds of attacks. Active Directory isn't used in the classroom, so the ability to block an AD takeover isn't being used. 

We haven't eliminated any other security solutions by adopting Endpoint Security, but we are trying to consolidate our solutions by installing a new FortiGate firewall and client licenses of FortiClient.

Endpoint Security provides the school with fundamental protection against viruses and other malware. It only covers traditional endpoints, not mobile devices, but we've never had any outbreaks. 

The best thing about Symantec is its ability to control our endpoints from a single point. You can manage the antivirus definitions, upgrades, remote scanning, etc., from one console. 

In four years, we had no reason to switch solutions, but lately, we've found that Symantec is slowing down the machines. They are looking to change solutions. I would like to stop the Endpoint Security Client's scan when the device boots. It slows the machine a lot. The scan should only run when the machine is idle. The scan often happens when the machine is at its peak load. 

I would also like Symantec to add ransomware protection. If a machine is infected by ransomware, it's hard to recover the data. We don't have any data on the client, so we're not overly concerned about that. Still, it would be nice to have this feature if there are any future problems. 

My client has been using Endpoint Security for two or three years.

Endpoint Security is stable. 

Endpoint Security is a scalable tool. 

I rate Symantec support a nine out of ten. I only had to contact them once in ten years, and the support was excellent. They solved the problem in ten minutes.

Positive

We're looking at other solutions. We mainly want something that doesn't experience performance degradation during scans or updates. 

I started to work with this client two years after implementation. I have been managing the solution for a year and a half. I provide them with renewals and updates when necessary. It doesn't require much maintenance. I didn't have to visit the premises this year.

The price of Symantec is on the higher end. They face some competition from a company called Quick Heal, which is much cheaper than Endpoint Security. They offer three years of protection at just 900 rupees.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security an eight out of ten. My first piece of advice is not to deploy Endpoint Security on traditional machines because it'll slow it down. India is a price-sensitive market. Many companies won't pay attention to the speed of a hard drive. They'll only look at the size. They would rather go for a 500 GB hard drive, even if it is not required, rather than a 256 GB SSD. 

If you want to deploy something over and above your operating system's capabilities, you need to have a powerful machine to handle that. Performance is mainly an issue on devices using traditional drives. The performance doesn't deteriorate by more than two percent on an SSD drive, whereas it is more than 15 to 20 percent on an average drive.

Symantec provides an anti-malware solution for our infrastructure, including a host firewall, behavioral analysis, and intrusion prevention. It's an essential compliance component of an enterprise.

We have domestic and offshore branch offices, data centers, and headquarters. We initially deployed it to 2,500 workstations and eventually expanded to 3,500.

Symantec detects malicious software in our environment and provides intrusion prevention. We see the benefits immediately after deployment. Our whole platform benefited from Endpoint Security.

Symantec's detection capabilities are strong. It involves run protection and behavioral analysis.

We had an issue with the Broadcom migration. We had some problems with product support, and the deployment is tricky because it's an on-premises technology. Deploying any on-premises security solution is hard because you have to distribute the software. 

There are also some issues with false positives and minor product issues in terms of usability. It comes back to the support team. If we have product issues, then it should be relatively easy for them to resolve the matter. 

We started using Symantec in 2015 or early 2016. We still use the solution, but we plan to decommission it by the year's end.

Symantec is relatively stable, but it's an on-premises solution, so we need to spend more time on version upgrades and patches. We have encountered some major bugs, which cause DSOD on all our machines during updates.

We haven't tried scaling up because we maintain a stable number of users, but it's fairly easy to add some users to Symantec. It's just like migration.

I rate Symantec support six out of ten. They need more specialized support engineers with advanced knowledge of Endpoint Security. We have several people with experience using the product, so we know the basics already. Also, the resolution speed isn't acceptable.

Neutral

We used McAfee VirusScan Enterprise in the past. We transferred to Symantec primarily because our team has prior experience with Symantec. We also considered its Gartner rating. I believe Symantec is in the first or second spot in the endpoint protection category.

We did the deployment and testing ourselves. The deployment wasn't as easy as we would like. The environment and network are complex. That's why we need to consider different types of deployment. We use our software configuration management and also some standalone solutions. We sometimes use DMZ for manual installation. Those were the pain points of the deployment. It's not one source of deployment that we use differently.

It took around three months to completely deploy Symantec and replace McAfee.
Our deployment team was a combination of IT and security operations. A few asset owners were included, as well. After deployment, maintenance is minimal. 

I don't have any data on ROI, but we get what we need. From the moment we deployed Symantec, we haven't had any incidents coming from an endpoint.

I was not involved in the negotiations, but I believe the price was within the range we expect for endpoint protection.

We also considered Trend Micro and Carbon Black. Symantec's sales team won by lowering the price and adding some features in the package like web security services and Symantec EDR.

I rate Symantec Endpoint Security seven out of ten. I would recommend this product for securing endpoints. Hopefully, their support will improve. 

I'm an admin in an IT consulting company and we have different companies that use Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise.

Symantec provides a lot of security for the end user. For example, if I'm going to a website that is not trusted, Symantec will alert me that it's not trusted or it will even block it. It's endpoint security that always gives you alerts about the dos and don'ts before you even get into danger. Some antiviruses will only alert you once you are in danger. With Symantec, you get the alert before you even click on or visit a dangerous site. The detection processes are very good and they have a good notification process to tell you if whatever you are opening or working on is not good for the PC.

I have the solution on my phone and that makes it quite secure. It blocks all ads and malware. Before Symantec, I used to get a lot of ads, especially if I was doing research on the internet. Since I started using Symantec on my phone, it has blocked all of them. And it is connected to my main account on the PC, so it gives me a combined report on whatever I'm doing and whichever sites I've visited.

For us, as an MSP, Symantec is the best for breach prevention. We have been using it for almost two years now and we haven't had any major attacks or ransomware. We are always protected. Previously, before we got to Symantec, one of our clients was attacked by ransomware, but since we deployed Symantec on all our users' endpoints, we haven't had any issues.

In the long run, it has made the security side of our company more solid. Now, we don't battle with viruses and malware. It has helped with our company's growth. Symantec has given us a great sense of assurance and protection. We know that all the devices and endpoints are well secured and that there won't be any major attacks or any damage to them.

The mobile application is valuable. You are able to see the reports of intrusions and the like on mobile devices. That is one of the coolest aspects.

Also, they recently upgraded the solution to provide a graphical interface that gives you an overview of the detections and whatever has been blocked. It gives you a pie chart with a breakdown of whoever is trying to access things.

In addition, it's always running and it doesn't consume a lot of memory, which would slow a PC down.

I have been using Symantec for almost two years. I do the admin part of it for Windows and mobile phones, including installations and reports.

It's very reliable. It's very steady and doesn't give us issues.

The scalability is also 100 percent. Its ability to grow with the organization is positive. It's something that our company wants to use in the long term.

We have used their technical support a few times because we have had challenges with licensing issues. 

You have to go to the support site and log a ticket. They will assign it to an agent and then the agent will call and assist you with the issue. They have always been helpful whenever we have contacted them.

Positive

We were using Trend Micro. We switched to Symantec because the intrusion level is very low and the alerting system is very good. Symantec gives you an alert whenever you are doing something that is not right. You don't even need a techie to tell you not to do this or that.

The setup is very easy, especially when done by email. You just add the end-users information on Symantec and they get an invite via email. Once they get the link they click on it. That downloads the installation file and installs it for them. Our IT team of four people work on it together.

We get the key from a local partner and we apply it on our portal. From there we push the installation files to the users and install them. Then we do the reporting system.

In terms of maintenance, it's mostly cloud-based. Updates are done automatically.

We do it ourselves.

We have seen ROI. It has saved us a lot of money.

The pricing is good, very moderate, and the licensing is also good. It gives you more room to install a lot of endpoints and it even gives you the opportunity to install it on your mobile phone without any extra cost.

The one issue we have is that whenever we buy a license, it takes us to a new tenant. We communicate with our local partners and they give us the license key. Then, we have to go to the portal and apply it, but sometimes it doesn't work. We then have to create a new administrative account and migrate all our endpoints. That is the only major issue we have been battling with. Apart from that, it's fine.

We already had our eyes set on Symantec because it was something that some of our clients had been using.

I always tell my colleagues in the IT space that Symantec is one of the best antivirus solutions that we have used. Most of our clients, before we approach them, use different solutions so we do a test. We put a virus on their PC to see if their antivirus is able to detect it, and we find that it does not detect that there is a virus or an intrusion on the device. Once we install Symantec, it blocks everything and immediately detects that there is malware or an intrusion on the PC that needs attention.

Symantec is the best when it comes to other antiviruses and endpoint solutions in the global market.

Symantec Endpoint Protection is something I would recommend. It's one of the best.