We performed a comparison between Kiteworks and Symantec Messaging Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Secure Email Gateway (SEG) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The top two features are the two-factor authentication, which is pretty good. It's easily understood by the users. And their API is rather robust. We have numerous integrations that work off the API."
"We could see whether the customer with whom we shared a file had downloaded it, which was not available with GitHub."
"The best part of this solution is that we can generate multiple reports about how the data is transferred and about user information or IP."
"The most valuable aspect of Kiteworks is undoubtedly the private content network. This feature is particularly beneficial for us. Furthermore, it serves as a centralized platform that enables us to track and manage our information exchange."
"I like Kiteworks or Accellion because it's continuously upgraded. I also know that it probably works with a lot of clients."
"The benefits that Kiteworks has provided to its customers in terms of data sovereignty."
"The solution removes the limitations with file attachment size that is found with regular email."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to allow end-users to manage their own information and data with minimal administration. That's the best feature from my perspective."
"The anti-malware and spam features are valuable."
"Symantec’s spyware and malware signature database is very good compared to other products."
"The solution is excellent at blocking spam."
"It is a solid and stable product."
"Symantec is a secure product."
"The solution is "set and forget". You pay for it and everything is done for you."
"The most valuable features of Symantec Messaging Gateway are advanced content filtering, malware, and antivirus defense."
"Symantec Messaging Gateway is stable and scalable. Installation is easy, and the deployment and maintenance can be done by one administrative person."
"Kiteworks could benefit from enhancing the proposal knowledge base section, specifically regarding the type of work involved. Currently, the knowledge base seems insufficiently dedicated to this topic, making it challenging for new users to access the relevant administrative law. Improving the visual aids and providing clearer explanations could alleviate this issue."
"It could be more stable. In the next release, it would be better if it was more stable with improved performance."
"There is no offboarding process for end-users in Kiteworks. It's a manual process. There is no automated syncing with LDAP and checking to see if the account is still active. It's a manual process to get people out of here, which isn't the best way."
"There are always issues when there are bugs or upgrades. The challenge with upgrading is getting more storage from the customer. Every time we have a new version, it requires additional storage. This means that the customer would need to procure more storage for their server, which they don't like because it means additional cost to them. So, I think my request would be that the version upgrades don't require any significant storage requirement."
"It would be nice if Kiteworks could provide a free version of the platform so that it could be used for a certain number of file transfers. We could be charged a fee if we exceeded the number of allotted file transfers."
"In my experience, their technical support can be a little slow."
"The one feature, which I have also requested directly to Kiteworks, is to have a scheduled upgrade function. Currently, one of my engineers logs in after hours for the upgrade. We're a hospital, and we're 24/7, but the primary users are seven to five. So, we log in the early evening just to push a button to tell it to do the update. It would be nice if that could be very easily scheduled."
"File location could be improved."
"In a later release, it would be nice if the messaging gateway supported the cluster feature."
"This product would benefit from better integration with Symantec Endpoint Protection."
"The false positive submissions must be improved."
"They have updated the version of the Messaging Gateway and the new features they are adding the need to be re-evaluated. They have done some changes on the policy."
"Messaging Gateway's advanced malware detection could be improved."
"We've had issues in the past where the user finds spam, and Symantec does not recognize it as spam."
"The documentation could have more detailed examples of how to use the product in various situations. As more companies shift to the cloud, they could better integrate the on-prem and cloud versions through an on-prem client."
"The solution interface is from 2003 and is outdated. Symantec Messaging Gateway needs to update the interface."
Kiteworks is ranked 7th in Secure Email Gateway (SEG) with 12 reviews while Symantec Messaging Gateway is ranked 6th in Secure Email Gateway (SEG) with 20 reviews. Kiteworks is rated 8.8, while Symantec Messaging Gateway is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kiteworks writes "A unified, secure way to share sensitive content, with no file size limitations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Messaging Gateway writes "A stable and reasonably priced solution that performs well and has a very good malware database". Kiteworks is most compared with Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, MOVEit, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, SharePoint and Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense, whereas Symantec Messaging Gateway is most compared with Cisco Secure Email, Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Fortinet FortiMail and Trend Micro Email Security. See our Kiteworks vs. Symantec Messaging Gateway report.
See our list of best Secure Email Gateway (SEG) vendors.
We monitor all Secure Email Gateway (SEG) 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.
