"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"It protects from signature-based attacks and signature-less attacks. The sandboxing technology, invented by FireEye, is very valuable. Our customers go for FireEye because of the sandboxing feature. When there is a threat or any malicious activity with a signature, it can be blocked by IPS. However, attacks that do not have any signatures and are very new can only be blocked by using the sandboxing feature, which is available only in FireEye. So, FireEye has both engines. It has an IPS engine and a sandbox engine, which is the best part. You can get complete network protection by using FireEye."
"The server appliance is good."
"The most valuable feature is MVX, which tests all of the files that have been received in an email."
"Very functional and good for detecting malicious traffic."
"It is stable and quite protective. It has a lot of features to scan a lot of malicious things and vulnerabilities."
"I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"You don't have to buy a separate email security platform. You can enable that using their endpoint, and I like that. You don't have to have two agents running on the same box."
"The incident management on the solution is very good. You get a lot of detailed information about an incident. You also get a lot of documentation in connection with the CVI or integration."
"Endpoint to network protects the line."
"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"Its documentation can be improved. The main problem that I see with FireEye is the documentation. We are an official distributor and partner of FireEye, and we have access to complete documentation about how to configure or implement this technology, but for customers, very limited documentation is available openly. This is the area in which FireEye should evolve. All documents should be easily available for everyone."
"Technical packaging could be improved."
"Technical support could be improved."
"They can maybe consider supporting some compliance standards. When we are configuring rules and policies, it can guide whether they are compliant with a particular compliance authority. In addition, if I have configured some rules that have not been used, it should give a report saying that these rules have not been used in the last three months or six months so that I disable or delete those rules."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"Scalability could be better."
"The support for new OSs and older OSs could be a little tighter. They need to be more upfront about what protection services they're going to provide on new OSs. I haven't seen the Windows 11 version out yet. It is either already released in Beta, or the Beta will be released soon. There could be a little bit more advanced updates on what they're doing to help protect Windows 11 environments. They can let us know in advance so that we know it is going to be protected. We can't roll out the new OS without putting end-point protection on it. So, they should tell us what is their support model for that, and what are they doing to protect Windows 11. They're not telling me, and that's a criticism. The same issue is applicable to all the other antivirus tools. It is not just Symantec; all of them have this problem."
"Symantec appliances need improvement. The whole appliance environment is a robust system and it needs a massive amount of storage space. If you have to increase or speed up the background storage it's a pretty complicated process. The scalability and sizing is critical, and if you do it wrong you run into issues pretty quickly."
"Not ideal for advanced threat protection."
FireEye Network Security is ranked 6th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 6 reviews while Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is ranked 7th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 4 reviews. FireEye Network Security is rated 8.6, while Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of FireEye Network Security writes "A reliable and complete network protection solution that protects from signature-based and signature-less attacks and has powerful logging". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Advanced Threat Protection writes "Good incident management and great integrations but needs to improve its on-premises appliances". FireEye Network Security is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Stealthwatch, Check Point SandBlast Network and Proofpoint Email Protection, whereas Symantec Advanced Threat Protection is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Check Point SandBlast Network, Arbor DDoS and Fortinet FortiEDR. See our FireEye Network Security vs. Symantec Advanced Threat Protection report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
