Jamf Protect vs Symantec Endpoint Security Complete comparison

Symantec Endpoint Security Complete and Jamf Protect offer comprehensive security solutions for businesses. Users are happier with the pricing and support of Symantec Endpoint Security Complete, but Jamf Protect seems to be a superior product due to its features, and users feel it is worth the price.

Features: Symantec Endpoint Security Complete is valued for its extensive threat detection and prevention capabilities. It includes advanced machine-learning algorithms, real-time visibility, and integrated response actions. Jamf Protect is praised for its specialized focus on macOS devices, offering seamless integration with Apple ecosystems, which appeals to organizations that rely heavily on Apple products. In comparison, Symantec provides a broader range of features, while Jamf focuses on its niche specialization.

Room for Improvement: Users suggest that Symantec Endpoint Security Complete should enhance its performance efficiency and simplify its complex configuration settings. Jamf Protect users emphasize the need for better scalability options and enhanced cross-platform support. The differences highlight that Symantec needs to focus on usability improvements, whereas Jamf should expand its system compatibility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Symantec Endpoint Security Complete is reported to have a longer deployment time due to its comprehensive and complex setup, but its robust customer service significantly mitigates this challenge. Jamf Protect is noted for its quick and smooth deployment process, tailored particularly for macOS environments, but users find its customer service to be less accessible compared to Symantec. These differences underline the trade-offs between deployment complexity and customer service quality.

Pricing and ROI: Users find Symantec Endpoint Security Complete to offer a more competitive pricing structure with a substantial ROI for larger enterprises with diverse device ecosystems. Jamf Protect, while considered more expensive, provides a higher ROI for organizations primarily using Apple devices due to its specialized features and efficiency. Consequently, the choice between the two products depends largely on the specific device environment of the organization.