No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Malwarebytes Teams vs Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 15, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Net...
Sponsored
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (6th), Extended Detection and Response (XDR) (4th), Ransomware Protection (2nd), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (1st)
Malwarebytes Teams
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
26th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Symantec Endpoint Security ...
Ranking in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
38th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) category, the mindshare of Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks is 3.7%, down from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Malwarebytes Teams is 1.7%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise is 0.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks3.7%
Malwarebytes Teams1.7%
Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise0.6%
Other94.0%
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)
 

Featured Reviews

ABHISHEK_SINGH - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Process Expert at A.P. Moller - Maersk
Gained full visibility and streamlined threat detection through behavior-based insights and AI integration
Initially, we got to have a lot of false positives when we onboarded, but nowadays it's quite smooth. We have fine-tuned our security policies and allowed different levels of policies to get rid of those false positives. Currently, we are getting a fairly good amount of incidents that are not false positives or benign, but actionable items. The process is streamlined. In the initial days, the operations used to get involved in a lot of benign and other activities, but now the process is streamlined. We are leveraging the auto-detection and remediation plans. The operations teams are now more involved in other business roles as well, not just looking into the logs and fetching out what's happening there. They have fixed a lot of things. Initially, they didn't have IAC code drift detection, cloud posture management, or security posture management, but they have those now. They purchased different vendors and did a merger with that. They have now Prisma Cloud that gets integrated and now they are working with Cortex Cloud. Everything that was negative has now been addressed, and the product altogether looks to be in a very better and mature shape now. Currently, it's more or less detecting the workloads with AI-based best practices. Since most organizations are consuming AI agents and other things, we are looking forward to seeing what other feature enhancements Palo Alto can support in that.
reviewer2594097 - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Executive Officer at a wholesaler/distributor with 11-50 employees
Exceptional malware protection with regular updates and behavior-based detection
There are no built-in backups or integrated backup options, which could be an opportunity. The free version is effective, however, the paid version is pricey compared to it. Other customers have mentioned issues with false positives. It lacks enterprise-level management and more enterprise functionality. CrowdStrike and SentinelOne are much more enterprise-grade solutions. Malwarebytes has limited integration with cybersecurity tools and lacks enterprise integrations because it is not an enterprise product.
reviewer2162541 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Provides stable and resource-efficient protection but lacks clear modern security features
Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise is highly compatible and rarely causes disruptions in production. It operates transparently and is easy to maintain. The automated response feature helps to mitigate breaches effectively. When comparing with ThreatDown agent, I have noticed that ThreatDown detects behaviors more readily and flags suspicious user activities more clearly. While Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise remains effective, ThreatDown's user interface is more manageable and provides a clearer system overview. The management interface is crucial for maintaining Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise effectively. A significant advantage of Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise is its lightweight resource usage. It consumes less memory, CPU, and IO compared to alternatives such as ThreatDown and Bitdefender.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution doesn't need a high level of technical training."
"The solution helps find bugs, and it is safe to use to prevent attacks by hackers."
"The product is very good, it has caught a lot of exploits that most products would not."
"Cortex XDR lets us manage several clients from the same console, and its endpoint defense is more advanced than traditional antivirus."
"They have a new GUI which is just fantastic."
"Cortex is the best tool for endpoint detection, and I have used it to verify hashes or domains to identify malicious activity, trigger playbooks that automate and gather endpoint logs, block malicious processes, and update incident tickets, showcasing end-to-end processes with automation in investigation and reducing the analysis workflow."
"It blocks malicious files, prevents attacks, and doesn't require many updates because it is a very light application."
"We use it for malicious connections from malicious websites, to identify payloads that might be inside the traffic, to identify malicious processes or bugs that are running on the network, and any activities that tend to lead to data infiltration."
"The installation process is very easy, especially since it is on the cloud."
"The product provides notifications for suspicious events. We have several public access points. The product helps to prevent unauthorized entry. Its most valuable features are pre-installation procedures and a cloud console. The console's interface is simple and can be viewed easily to take action. It covers everything in terms of security threats."
"Provides successful ransomware shut down operations."
"Being able to carry out a full scan on your system."
"I commonly recommend Malwarebytes to people due to the fact that I find it quite reliable."
"It allows us to have better knowledge of the way people use the tool and how we can improve their workflows."
"It's very versatile and thorough."
"Ten times a day, improved signatures will be downloaded, so it is very up-to-date in terms of malware experience."
"Anti-malware is the most valuable feature. We trust Symantec for protection, and we like the idea that Symantec is preventing us from accessing certain websites that are known for containing malware."
"This was a great product at the very beginning and it has only gotten better as they've added capabilities, so I'm a very big fan."
"Simple and very scalable solution that provides endpoint security and malware protection."
"The most valuable features of Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise are the proactive threat protection and the normal spyware protection which they offer in addition to catching standard threats. It all works well for us even without an EDR."
"The solution works well overall, you can scale the product, the solution is secure, and the product has a very good user interface."
"The most valuable feature of Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise is the application. Additionally, they are adding features frequently."
"Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise is highly compatible and rarely causes disruptions in production; it operates transparently and is easy to maintain."
"Since I joined the company and implemented Symantec and other products, we've had stability on our network and no security incidents or breaches."
 

Cons

"It tends to do 99.9% of things. The only thing I'd like is single sign-on authentication into their cloud platform so that my users can be properly authenticated against it."
"The solution can never really be an on-premises solution based simply on the way it is set up. It needs metadata to run and improve. Having an on-premises solution would cut it off from making improvements."
"It's more focused on network communication. If a customer wants to increase the level of protection and start working with documents, it's impossible to integrate these features into the system. It's more of a communication-oriented system than a content security-oriented system."
"Data privacy is a matter of concern. You have to be careful with data privacy, it can be sensitive and Cortex can have most of your access."
"Cortex XDR is trickier to configure than other Palo Alto products. This is one area where we are not so satisfied."
"The product's pricing could be better."
"We have found that there are times Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks does not detect some of the viruses, we have to use another protection solution called Kaspersky."
"I have seen lagging with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. There was one time when we faced a threat actor trying to gain access to our system. When our team utilized the tool, we were all on the same dashboard and we faced a lag issue at that time of around five minutes, which was quite significant."
"Every once in a while, it gets clobbered by updates from other places. I don't think this should happen."
"I would like to see a little more detail in the log. So, when an event occurs, I'd like to know not just when it happened and on what device, but what activity was taking place on the machine at the time so that we can drill down. If we get a false positive, we have to do a lot of research and go back and forth with our end-users to know why it was a false positive. So, having a little more detail around detections and events would probably be my most asked feature."
"Malwarebytes is too simplistic. From a SOC IR perspective, it doesn't give you very much data around it. It doesn't tie things or provide SHA-1 and SHA-256 detection information, which makes it hard to do an additional investigation."
"Notifications are lacking."
"They can include advanced scanning and improve reporting. I scan malware on the pen drive. Some more reports need to be added for that. It should also provide better protection because we have a new version of the malware."
"The stability and performance of the solution are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The interface could be improved. Currently, you need to really dig around to find the elements you need."
"The product's stability needs improvement."
"Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise used to be a stable product, but now that aspect needs improvement. They also used to provide good technical support, but now not so much, so that needs improvement."
"There could be a pop-up notification at the users' end whenever the software expires."
"The solution's management dashboard could be improved. An easier-to-use threat-hunting dashboard would make life easier for security analysts. Its support needs to improve for the African region."
"The product is a bit resource-intensive."
"The solution could always be more stable and more user-friendly."
"Needs to be more user-friendly; lacks a simple way to search data."
"Symantec's main priority should be enhancing their support, especially local support for different regions."
"An area for improvement for Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise would be its firewall features, in particular, this solution needs to provide more control over the firewall."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little bit on the expensive side."
"Traps pays for itself within the first 16 months of a three-year subscription. This is attributed to OPEX savings, as security teams spent less time trying to identify and isolate malware for analysis as a result of a reduction in malware incidents, false positives, and breach avoidance."
"The pricing seems fair, and I do like the licensing model. You use wherever they are, and it is elastic."
"The cost depends on your chosen license type, like Pro or other licenses."
"It is present, but when compared to other competitive products, I would say it is not less expensive; however, when all of the other added values are considered, the price is reasonable."
"I don't have any issues with the pricing. We are satisfied with the price."
"I am using the Community edition."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The cost may be something in the ballpark of $20-25 a year per computer."
"The platform pricing is competitive with other antivirus products."
"The licensing is per seat, with clients being a little less expensive than servers. If we need more licenses, we can accomplish that within a day. As Malwarebytes adds new features to their product, such as DNS filtering and a patching module, they want to charge us more even though we're a premium user, which isn't ideal."
"I would say that it's affordable. It costs much less than Sentinel One, CrowdStrike, or anything of that nature. But, at the same time, you are getting what you pay for. So I would say it's one of the best when you're comparing traditional NextGen AVs like Webroot that aren't the best in the bunch."
"I believe the retail price is between $40 and $50 per copy."
"We expect to pay $1,000 USD a month, depending on the number of users."
"Its licensing is annual. There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fee."
"It is really expensive. We've got between 30 and 40 licenses every year, and for the number of licenses that we have, we're finding that Malwarebytes on average costs between $900 and $1,000 more per year than comparable options. We're paying about $3,300 per year for these licenses. There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fee."
"The solution's license is very expensive."
"It's not the cheapest, but it's reasonably priced, around a five on a scale from one to ten. It's suitable for small, medium, and enterprise businesses and offers competitive pricing. There are no additional costs; it's a renewable purchase, either annually or as needed."
"The product is not very expensive."
"We have Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise, and it's very competitively priced. However, there is a considerable jump in price for upgrading to the EDR, so that's more compatible with enterprise-level organizations."
"The product is neither cheap nor expensive, meaning it is an average-priced solution."
"I would rate it a seven, indicating a satisfactory and moderate level. Despite being somewhat on the expensive side, it aligns with our long-standing relationship with Symantec, and we find it acceptable."
"The price of Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise is expensive. When compared to other solutions they should reduce the price."
"I rate Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise's pricing a two out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
University
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business46
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise52
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. Sentinel One
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. SentinelOne SentinelOne offers very detailed specifics with regard to risks or attacks. ...
Comparing CrowdStrike Falcon to Cortex XDR (Palo Alto)
Cortex XDR by Palo Alto vs. CrowdStrike Falcon Both Cortex XDR and Crowd Strike Falcon offer cloud-based solutions th...
How is Cortex XDR compared with Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-delivered endpoint security solution. The tool reduces the attack surface,...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Malwarebytes?
I really hate the automatic rebilling without officially confirming it with me. It's an annoyance and they should at ...
What needs improvement with Malwarebytes?
It takes up too much space when it's trying to run in the background.
What is your primary use case for Malwarebytes?
My primary use case is that it's protecting me against malware.
What needs improvement with Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise?
I have not experienced integrated threat intelligence benefits with Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise. Many custo...
What is your primary use case for Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise?
The primary use case for Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise for my clients is basic antivirus protection.
What advice do you have for others considering Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise?
Several of my customers continue to use Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise. As a system consultant, I recommend an...
 

Also Known As

Cyvera, Cortex XDR, Palo Alto Networks Traps
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CBI Health Group, University Honda, VakifBank
Knutson Construction
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Malwarebytes Teams vs. Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.