Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs Symantec Endpoint Security comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
Deep Instinct enhances security, reduces workload and false positives, ensuring 440% ROI and productivity without expert intervention.
Sentiment score
6.2
Symantec Endpoint Security offers significant ROI through reduced incidents, improved efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and minimal administrative needs, enhancing satisfaction.
Symantec Endpoint Security filled gaps in our toolset, particularly with the ability to control network firewall on hosts remotely, which was greatly appreciated.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.8
Deep Instinct offers responsive, proactive technical support, with minor challenges, rated highly by customers for communication and issue resolution.
Sentiment score
6.5
Symantec Endpoint Security's customer service is efficient, while technical support responses vary, affected by locality and language issues.
Technical support from Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is fantastic.
In some cases, it rates as high as ten out of ten, while in others, it can be as low as eight.
There is no support in the German language, which is a problem for many public tenders.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform provides scalable and seamless endpoint expansion, supporting diverse deployment methods for medium to large organizations.
Sentiment score
7.7
Symantec Endpoint Security is scalable and adaptable, handling diverse workloads and seamlessly integrating, despite minor complexity and licensing challenges.
Symantec Endpoint Security is quite scalable, and it is very important for large clients.
The scalability of the servers is good, as it requires computational powers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is stable and reliable, featuring quick support for minimal issues and consistent performance improvements.
Sentiment score
7.7
Symantec Endpoint Security is stable for many, but some report resource issues, crashes, and support challenges on certain platforms.
Previously, we used to have multiple servers such as GUP servers and numerous servers for pushing updates, but we reduced it and transitioned almost 30,000 devices to CrowdStrike, which was easy to manage.
I have encountered issues where I had to uninstall and reinstall the product on end users' computers to view the logs again.
 

Room For Improvement

Deep Instinct needs improved control, compatibility, logging, resource efficiency, and competitive pricing for better usability and performance.
Symantec Endpoint Security faces challenges with virus detection, resource consumption, complex management, integration, and needs improved threat protection and support.
I would like to see improvements in the scanning part of the solution, specifically to enhance the CPU and hard disk usage during scanning and updates to prevent disruption during work hours.
We wanted to add multiple hashes because of numerous new alerts coming, but we could only add them one by one, which is a considerable disadvantage in Symantec.
It is cumbersome to use, particularly in handling firewall management.
 

Setup Cost

Deep Instinct offers competitively priced, efficient enterprise protection with nonprofit discounts, simple licensing, and included support, despite console cost concerns.
Symantec Endpoint Security provides a reasonably priced solution with discounts for specific sectors, offering value despite cheaper alternatives.
The licensing is very competitively priced, better than all other solutions.
It seems to be half the cost or more affordable than other solutions.
Symantec Endpoint Protection and Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise are quite affordable, with Symantec Endpoint Security Complete costing about four times the Endpoint Protection price, still comparable to other EDR products.
The pricing is very low compared to other companies like SentinelOne and others.
 

Valuable Features

Deep Instinct offers accurate, lightweight malware protection with real-time, offline capabilities and seamless deployment across Windows, Mac, and Android.
Symantec Endpoint Security provides comprehensive, user-friendly protection with seamless management, offering robust threat detection and prevention across platforms.
A valuable feature of Symantec Endpoint Security is the ability to remotely isolate a computer from the network if it's compromised, either physically or digitally.
What I appreciate most about Symantec Endpoint Security is that it's easy to manage compared to other tools I have worked with, such as minimal endpoint security, McAfee, and CrowdStrike.
One important feature is the EDR function, necessary for many public customers due to upcoming laws in Germany, which is available through Symantec Endpoint Security Complete.
 

Categories and Ranking

Deep Instinct Prevention Pl...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
39th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (24th)
Symantec Endpoint Security
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
13th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
145
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is 0.7%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Symantec Endpoint Security is 3.7%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Symantec Endpoint Security3.7%
Deep Instinct Prevention Platform0.7%
Other95.6%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Elena Yau - PeerSpot reviewer
Prevention, in advance, saves us remediation time
We have a PHI (protected health information) committee, and some of the things that we review on a weekly basis are incidents. For example, if there was malware or adware or some kind of phishing attempt, or even ransomware, we would have to investigate and see if there was any PHI impact. We've seen small things because some kind of adware made its way through the browser from some malicious link, and it's really hard to prevent those. We're putting more levels of filtering around that. There are some product development ideas that we have been working on alongside the DI team, and they've been super helpful. There are definitely a lot more little areas of improvement for the interface. Also, we have talked with the DI team about adding the forensic piece, which is what we do a lot. That would be added value and they've just recently provided more individuals to think about the roadmap. That's part of their strategy and one of the good features that they want to bring on. Hopefully, they can bring that to fruition and that will ease our workflow a little bit more. The additional predictive and prevention capabilities in the 3.0 version, that don't require special rules and configuration, help our organization. The only caveat is that when things get done automatically, I would appreciate more logging of what's happening in the background, if it is doing some kind of intervention. If we need to do some forensics, we should be able to backtrack from the log that gets uploaded to our cloud instance and see, forensically, what the root cause was. We should be able to see what instigated that trigger by DI and what exactly was done. That's a missing piece. It does a good job of preventing, but then we don't know what were the symptoms of the prevention. Let's say that there was like a PowerShell block. We'll see an indicator on the dashboard and we'll look at the logs and investigate. Sometimes we find that the logs that are captured locally on the endpoint itself are not very thorough. We were coached through our training with DI that, when troubleshooting, the DI team would always ask for the logs from the endpoint. We know what we need to do to look at something. But the logging for DI doesn't capture everything. There are some things that are missing. When it comes to root-cause analysis, or kill-chain analysis, and figuring out exactly what happened, it's very hard to do that right now on the product. I have used Carbon Black before and they're pretty good with the forensic analysis. That does save some efforts of my one engineer and myself when we have to go through the PHI committee. Right now, with Di, that feels like a blind spot. Another area for development is making the license clean-up a little bit easier. We always have to manually uninstall agents. If there were some way to remove the licensing and do better license management on the platform, that would help my team as well.
Kumbesh Rajagopal - PeerSpot reviewer
Management becomes easier with minimal complications, but improvement in support tools needed
Regarding areas of improvement for Symantec Endpoint Security, there are many changes, and the support portal tool is complicated compared to other tools. When trying to get service from Symantec, the process is complex. I'm not sure whether it's because of my project or something else. Though it is easy to manage, easy to get, easy to install, and works efficiently for managing policies, we faced a significant disadvantage. We wanted to add multiple hashes because of numerous new alerts coming, but we could only add them one by one, which is a considerable disadvantage in Symantec.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise62
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Deep Instinct?
The product offers integration capabilities and is also easy to use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Deep Instinct?
The pricing of this tool has almost zero setup cost, and the implementation is straightforward. The licensing is very competitively priced, better than all other solutions.
What needs improvement with Deep Instinct?
The main area for improvement in Deep Instinct Prevention Platform is Arm support, which is not implemented yet. Though it's coming, they haven't released it yet.
Which is better - Cortex XDR or Symantec End-User Endpoint Security?
Aqua Security is easy to use and very manageable. Its main focus is on Kubernetes and Docker. Security is a very valuable feature and their speed of integration is very good. The initial setup was ...
Which offers better endpoint security - Symantec or Microsoft Defender?
We use Symantec because we do not use MS Enterprise products, but in my opinion, Microsoft Defender is a superior solution. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security s...
What do you like most about Symantec End-User Endpoint Security?
Symantec have everything – documentation, videos, data sheets.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Symantec EPP, Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP)
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Audio Visual Dynamics, Red Deer Advocate, Asia Pacific Telecom Co. Ltd., Kibbutz Ein Gedi, and AMETEK, Inc.
Find out what your peers are saying about Deep Instinct Prevention Platform vs. Symantec Endpoint Security and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.