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

MetaDefender vs Symantec Protection Engine comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 14, 2025

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

MetaDefender
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
34th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (35th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (36th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (14th)
Symantec Protection Engine
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
31st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Anti-Malware Tools category, the mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.6%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Symantec Protection Engine is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Anti-Malware Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Symantec Protection Engine0.4%
MetaDefender1.6%
Other98.0%
Anti-Malware Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.
Abhimanyu Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Associate at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real-time file security has reduced incident tickets and improves threat detection accuracy
The best features of Symantec Protection Engine include machine learning, file reputation, and real-time scanning. It efficiently handles heavy loads through ICAP and cloud-based processing, reducing the burden on endpoints compared to Trend Micro and other endpoint security solutions. Its centralized control is also noteworthy. Through machine learning, it detects both known and unknown malware and malicious URLs, in addition to performing signature-based scans that assist SOC teams in analysis. The solution is highly effective in leveraging both machine learning and file reputation. Regarding centralized control, it offers a unified management console for policy deployment and provides real-time visibility through dashboards, helping save significant administrative time. Symantec Protection Engine has had a positive impact on our organization by enhancing our overall security posture. It effectively blocks a high volume of file-based threats across more than 200 servers, saves SOC analysts time in endpoint remediation, and streamlines compliance processes. It further strengthens security through real-time scanning and machine learning-based quarantine, blocking phishing payloads in SharePoint uploads before they reach endpoints, thereby reducing incidents by 30–40% compared to signature-only tools.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"What I appreciate in Symantec Protection Engine is the Virtual Policy Manager (VPM) and the Application Name feature, which are really effective."
"Symantec Protection Engine's been a game-changer for us at Kantar—blocks like 80-85% of file-based threats right at the gateway before they hit our 200 servers, cutting down endpoint incidents big time."
 

Cons

"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"To improve Symantec Protection Engine, I suggest simplifying its integration with other tools, as it is more complex compared to Trend Micro and CrowdStrike."
"Price is a significant area for improvement. The pricing is quite expensive, and it is particularly high for regular customers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Anti-Malware Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Symantec Protection Engine?
To improve Symantec Protection Engine, I suggest simplifying its integration with other tools, as it is more complex compared to Trend Micro and CrowdStrike. Making the integration process easier w...
What is your primary use case for Symantec Protection Engine?
My main use case for Symantec Protection Engine in our organization involves both scanning and protection. We have nearly 200 servers in our environment with the Symantec agent installed. I use Sym...
 

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Anti-Malware Tools. Updated: January 2026.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.