Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is a good product.

It's a robust product.

There are several new products that offer better protection.

The artificial intelligence of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security could be better.

The web filter could be improved.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for more than 10 years.

It's a stable product, very robust.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is a scalable product.

We have 500 users in our organization.

I have not contacted technical support.

Apart from Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, I use other platforms. We have many different systems, such as Sandbox products, and other EDRs.

The installation is very easy.

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

We are using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for our network security.

The solutions' main features are patch management and security.

I have been using this solution for approximately five years.

The solution is not stable.

We had approximately 62,000 using the solution.

Since the division of the company, we have experienced a lack of support.

The installation is not easy.

I would not recommend this solution because of the new changed that they have made since the division of the company. The support has gone to Accenture and their product to Broadcom. It is a big change for the AV industry.

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

We are using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for our network security solution to protect us against threats, such as malicious software and websites.

The solution is easy to manage.

The solution already has support for Windows, Mac, and Linux but it could improve by having better support for Linux. We have run into some problems when there are upgrades. If they can improve this point, Symantec would be good for endpoint protection as well as for a critical server.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for approximately three years.

When we were not able to find a solution to issues we are having we have contacted technical support. There are times we created a support ticket in the morning and they respond in the evening when we are not available. However, they have been helpful and eventually provide us with a solution, it can take a bit of time.

The installation is not difficult for Windows and Mac OS it will autonomically install, based on the schedule we plan. However, for Linux, we could not do the installation from the Symantec manager and needed to install it one by one on the servers. 

One great benefit is we do not need to activate a license for every endpoint. The price is fair.

I have evaluated McAfee and Kaspersky.

Symantec was bought recently by Broadcom and this could be a reason some might not want to purchase the solution because of their background. However, this solution is popular and competitive with other solutions, such as McAfee or Kaspersky.

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

We primarily use the product for all of our desktops and laptops; we use it for security purposes - for endpoint protection.

The solution is constantly getting updated with the latest definitions. 

It's easy to get it across to all clients. The agent installation is very easy and the agent will talk to the server. 

It is very easy to managing everything in relation to the implementation and processing. The initial setup is very easy.

The solution scales quite well.

The solution has proven itself to be very stable over the years.

Technical support has been pretty good in general.

It would be great if the solution could match up with the competition's offerings - for example, making sure they are keeping up with, for example, CrowdStrike and other offerings.

They need to ensure they are continuously keeping up with cybersecurity trends.

If the next release contained advanced threat protection and EDR, et cetera, it would be really fantastic.

If the agent can be minimized so that it can work with in-memory concepts, that would be ideal. As of now, it is file-based, signature-based. If they should come with an in-memory option, it should work at the random-access memory level also. 

We've been using Symantec for the past two decades. It's been a long time. I have years of experience with the product.

The stability has been very good. We haven't had any issues in that respect. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is very reliable.

The solution can scale if you need it to. If a company needs to expand it, it shouldn't be a problem to do so.

I can't speak to how many of our users are currently on the product at this time.

As of right now, we do not have plans to increase the usage within our organization.

Technical support has been very good so far. We find them to be helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of support we get.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It is very simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the initial implementation.

We may switch to another solution and we are evaluating a variety of options currently. We have not come to a decision just yet. We simply want to see what else is on the market and how this product stands up to other solutions. We're mostly just curious to see what is happening in the space. We've looked at, for example, CrowdStrike, among others.

We are a customer as well as an end-user. We don't have a professional or business relationship with the company.

We only ever use the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure what version number we are on right now, however.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

I am using this solution for protecting myself from outside dangers. I am not using it on a daily basis. I open it very rarely. I open it only when I get an alert that I have got a suspicious file or something like that. I then go to the quarantine zone to check it.

The most valuable feature is that I don't feel that it is there. It works in the background and doesn't interfere with my daily work. All the scans are done in the background. This is the biggest advantage of this product. 

It works because I have never been infected since I have been using this solution. Its interface is also very good.

It can maybe send notifications when there is an update and everything is successful.

We have been using this solution for the entire life of our organization. It has probably been ten years.

It is completely stable. There are no issues. I don't find it slowing my laptop. I don't know if my laptop is powerful or the application doesn't take too many resources. A few years ago, the antivirus was slowing down computers and laptops, but now, I don't feel any such issue.

We have about 700 employees in our company, and a lot of them are using the same protection system.

I have an IT department that gives me technical support.

We did not use any other products in our organization. We have only been using Symantec products.

I was not involved in its installation. It was set up on the laptop before I got it from the IT department.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is a stable product. I would keep on using it unless my company decides otherwise.

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

Our primary use for this solution is for antivirus, website protection, and malware protection.

The most valuable feature for our organization is the antivirus, as our staff is the target of zero-day malware and viruses.

Better communication and coordination with Microsoft would help to prevent delays that are frequent when operating system updates are released. As it is now, when a new build from Microsoft comes out, we get warnings to say that certain applications are not compatible. We sometimes just have to wait until a new version of this solution is released in order for it to work properly. One of the problems is that Microsoft releases updates often, and sometimes they don't tell anybody. This can lead to the whole configuration being corrupted.

I would like to see a hybrid version of this solution that covers both in-house and cloud-based servers. 

This solution is very stable. It is "install and forget".

Once you install the solution on the server, it is very quick when it comes to updating the clients. Specifically, it sends packages really quickly to all of the clients to ensure that they have the latest build. It is transparent and quick.

This solution is constantly in use. It runs 24/7.

We have between sixty and seventy people, both IT and non-IT staff, who use this solution. The latter are primarily working in Microsoft Office and SharePoint environments.

The technical support is ok. You create a ticket and depending on what the issue is, and whether it is an emergency, they give it a level such as one, two, or three. After this, they take action and they are pretty good.

Most of the solutions to things like installation issues or other incompatibilities, they are quick on creating "How to" pages in their help.  

My understanding is that we were running Kaspersky before this solution was implemented, but I was not here at the time.

The initial setup is straightforward. Also, we have just updated, and the installation over the top of the old one was perfect. It saved all of the data that we had configured from the beginning, did a backup, installed the new version, and deleted the only one. It was good and simple.

The deployment takes approximately one hour, and one person can handle both deployment and maintenance.

We performed the installation in-house.

This solution protects us and we do not get any viruses, so this can be considered the return on our investment.

We receive a discounted price for this solution because we are a non-profit organization. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

I was not at this company when the solution was selected.

My advice for anybody implementing this solution is to consider the rules that you want to define. Installation is straightforward, but you can make it simple, or you can make it pretty complex.

For example, you can set up specific groups for in-house or external users. You can also install clients that only touch base occasionally, such as logging into the internal environment once per year. It can also be used on Virtual Machines, where the client's resources are limited or restricted. In a hosted environment, it does not have to be installed on the individual VMs. It can run on the host and it will scan everything.

There is also a cloud version of this product out now, which covers people who are more cloud-based.

So far, I find that this product works pretty good.

I would rate this solution a nine 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.

The primary key is because it doesn't impact much in the performance of the endpoint.

For me, the end point is almost a commodity. So, an advantage with Symantec is the integration. The integration with our two directories for taking control to administrate people, and then follow up with the segmentation to different people. To be able to manage a subset of the endpoint registering the solution, the distribution is in geographical sounds. The dashboard can be emailed, and I can receive the solution.

I find the most valuable features are the security features that have been developed in the past few years. 

A good improvement would be altering the console in the console manager. Sometimes we need to add and improve the security to access to the console because the indicators and we can take management activities into the console, and it's, nice to have to improve the security access to the console.

It is very stable. I do not have any problems with it at all. 

I only use the technical support once or twice a year. I find that sometimes they are a bit slow to find a solution. 

The most imprortant criteria for me to find a proper solution in this sphere are:

• Knowledge of the market
• Study of the solution

I also looked at McAffe, but I noticed that Symantec was the better performing solution when I researched respected user performance.