Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

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.

My primary use case for this is protecting the end user against cyber attacks. It is a simple product that is easily implemented on all of our hosts and servers.  It is especially helpful on our exchange server.

The Symantec product helps us protect ourselves against the Trojan horse. It reduces risk. As a financial institution, we are constantly at risk of attack.

I find the most valuable feature is that the product works on Linux and Microsoft Windows.  I think it is one of the best solutions to implement or host IPs.

In the future, I think there should be a sandboxing feature. Some of the most used endpoint protection does not include sandboxing. We cannot rely on URL filtering or IP repetition. Sometimes attacks can pass through the firewall.  

In addition, this product must be compatible with a VMware environment. Because most of our server has VMware. It seems that its not working very well with VMware.

Finally, they need to do some effort to make it a little bit sly. They have to make some improvement in order to not make the computer slow during all of the backend scanning.

It is a product that is simple and is working fine.

It is scalable because it is easy to use and it is fond of multiple features, using the management console.

I am not directly involved with the support team, one of my colleagues handles this communication.

The initial setup was very easy. It took about 2-3 minutes to be up and start downloading all updates on the PC's. You don't have to do anything more because it has an ability to work on Linux and Microsoft Windows products also.

The most important criteria for us is the price and the licensing. 

Our company used Norton Anti-Virus previously.  But, I was not at the company during that time.

We provide support, services, and licenses to customers. Clients mainly use it for security features: antivirus, anti-spyware, host firewall, and the application development tool. Our clients are in enterprise industries as well as small finance companies.

The solution is deployed on-premises. I'm working with the 14.3 RU4 version.

The most useful features are the antivirus, anti-spyware, and firewall features. It also provides application control and Host Integrity, which is a very unique feature.

Symantec helps prevent attackers from stealing domain credentials and launching stealthy attacks.

Almost all threats are detected by Symantec, which is a very good feature. They also have Global Intelligence. It's a great detection technology.

We blocked indicators of compromise. We created multiple custom rules for that in the application control, which is helpful if it's a zero-day.

Symantec needs to develop some reporting features and notifications. For instance, if the server is not on or it's shut down. There should also be time-based USB control.

The APIs could also be more developed.

I've been using this solution for 12 years.

The product is very stable.

It's scalable. Our clients plan to increase usage.

Currently, the technical support is not very good. I would rate them four out of ten. Their response time is slow.

Initial setup is very easy. There's no complexity. It's simple compared to other products.

We deployed the solution through the remote deployment tool.

Our implementation strategy was to first implement the managers, test the solution, then deploy it.

Two or three people are needed for deployment: one person for administration, one for deployment, and one for reporting.

The amount of people needed for maintenance depends on the different policy creations. It mostly involves creating the policies for the threat actors, the indicators of compromise, and upgrades. It also depends on the size of the company.

I heard a lot about McAfee, and their reporting feature is very good compared to Symantec.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

The solution is used for detection and endpoint protection against threats and malware. 

I like that the solution can be scaled to deal with different threats. The same agent will be integrated into different Symantec products, which obviates the need to deploy multiple agents. This keeps things very small and effective. 

The solution should have more integration with other platforms. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach to the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be resolved concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for over a year.

The solution is stable. 

The solution can be scaled to handle different threats. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open. 

The installation is straightforward.

The deployment lasts two hours. 

The licensing terms can range from subscription-based to perpetual, to annual, to tri-annual. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

The Symantec footprint in Pakistan was once very big, numbering 40,000 endpoints which were deployed by us and more than 20,000 by other partners in the banking sector, although now it is considerably smaller. 

The solution can be deployed both on-premises and on-cloud. 

At one point in time, we had 20 customers. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

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

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection for the workstations. It's desktop protection, basically. 

The auto-discovery capabilities are great. 

The solution offers very good security features and is comparable to Sophos. 

The solution is quite stable. 

Sophos's ransomware protection gives you some kind of comparative advantage over Symantec. Symantec needs to be better in this regard.

The monitoring capabilities could be further developed. For example, you get Sophos Central in Sophos. In Symantec, I don't know if there is an equivalent. You can actually manage and do deployment across the various geo-locations on every single point, however, Sophos is a cross-platform solution and Symantec is not. 

Sophos Central gives me a one-stop-shop on one page that allows me to monitor all activities going on in my network. Symantec doesn't have that.

The initial setup can be a bit complex.

The scalability could be a bit easier.

We're not too happy with the level of technical support we get.

The pricing is okay, however, it could be more competitive.

I've been using the solution for ten years at this point. It's been about a decade. We've used it for a long time. 

The solution is very stable. We have no complaints. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability of the product is decent. I'd rate the ease of scalability at a seven or eight out of ten.

The support hasn't been fantastic lately. It can be better. We're not very satisfied overall. They need to be more helpful and responsive. 

I use Symantec, however, I also use Sophos. I use Sophos for endpoint protection for my server. I use Symantec for my email workstations, et cetera.

For Symantec, it's sometimes a bit complex or difficult - especially when you're setting it up. It's not straightforward when you have to set it up, specifically from the server. On top of that, the administrative side is not a piece of cake. You have a lot of items you need to take care of. 

The pricing is decent. It falls within an acceptable range. However, if the goal is to draw more clients, it could be a bit less expensive. 

If you do a comparison between Symantec and Sophos, then you can easily see the comparative advantages Sophos has over Symantec. Symantec should study it in order to gain an edge in the industry and to better understand the areas to improve on, and what additional features to add.

I'd rate the product at an eight out of ten.

We are providing endpoint protection services. Our customers are very basic, and they usually enquire about endpoint protection, mainly antivirus. We try to explain to them about the threats and suggest that they go for endpoint security. We suggest this solution because it is a cloud-based solution, and they don't need to spare a VM for it. However, most of the time, they insist that nothing will happen to their system, and they just want to renew their endpoint protection system. They are usually not aware of ransomware or other threats.

I recently checked with a customer, and the feedback that we have got from this customer is that it is catching almost all pirated applications. They are very happy with it. The customer was using a few pirated applications, and it blocked all those applications. The IT person was able to convince them to go for genuine applications.

Device control is most valuable. Symantec is providing all such features in the basic plan, whereas when we last checked, such a feature was not available in the basic plan of Malwarebytes. 

More control features can be added, and its performance can also be better. Sometimes, the performance is not good when we access the cloud console. Moving to each tab is slow. 

The dashboard can be a little bit user-friendly. For some users, it is a bit difficult. If someone is a little bit familiar with it, then it is fine. Otherwise, it is hard to find policies in Symantec.

I have been using this solution for just one year.

It is stable.

Initially, our customer had a problem with SSO, and they contacted Symantec's technical support. They got immediate support, but the support that they received was not good.

Initially, it was a bit complex, and we spent some time understanding it. Since then, it has been straightforward. We know where exactly everything is. We have become familiar with it.

We usually set it up for our customers.

It is cheap. It is especially cheaper than Malwarebytes, which is three times higher than this. It is also cheaper than Cisco. Its price is almost similar to Bitdefender, Gravity, and CloudZone. 

Before recommending a solution, we check out the new features in each solution because we provide constant support. I would recommend this solution if a customer's requirements are basic. Similarly, if you are concerned about the price and looking for a safer option to secure your endpoints, you can go with Symantec.

It lacks certain features that are there in other solutions. There are certain features that are available in Bitdefender, but they are not there in this solution. I'm also not sure how good is its anti-ransomware protection.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a seven out of ten. As compared to other solutions, I don't find it to be a great solution, but our customers are very satisfied with it, and they would rate it at least an eight out of ten.

We use the solution as endpoint security.

The Sandboxing and ATP functionality does not integrate very well, improving this would be helpful. Additionally, having a single console that allows interaction with other security products would be great.

A lot of people have moved to their homes because of the pandemic and this has made endpoint security a crucial part of our protection against threats. Having full integration is very important for all the hardware to work together. If there is any strange network behaviour, all the hardware should work the first time to bring the security flaw forward to be actioned and solved. This only can happen if there are proper communication and integration with other hardware products.

I have been using the solution for approximately seven years.

I have been using the solution for a long while, it has been stable.

I have found the solution to be very scalable, we have 700 employees using the solution in our organization.

The customer service was good.

Before using this solution we used Trend Micro and McAfee. We have currently changed solutions and no longer use Symantec End-user Endpoint Security and we are back with Trend Micro.

The installation was very easy for us to manage, it was not a problem at all.

We used a partner to help us with the implementation and the full deployment took approximately one month. We currently have one administrator and a few engineers to manage the maintenance and deployment of the solution.

There are subscription costs, we typically purchase the annual subscription. There can be other expenses too, for example, we use CrowdStrike also as part of our policy.

We currently use Micro Trend because of our partnership company uses it with over 100 organizations.

I do not recommend the solution because we are using a different one currently.

I rate Symantec End-user Endpoint Security a seven 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.