We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"The stability is very good."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"The solution has good performance, I have not seen a problem."
"It's free. There is no additional cost. It's part of Windows."
"The most valuable features are that it's easy to use and the updates are very simple."
"This product is flexible, and it is very easy to get updates from the Microsoft website."
"Its real-time security is the most valuable."
"It automatically detects intrusion and malware."
"The protection that it provides is quite good."
"Auto-remediation: When the product sees malware, it resolves the issue immediately. This protects the machine."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features of Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response are its immediate response and investigation."
"Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is stable."
"The Detection vulnerability is very effective."
"I like Symantec EDR's device control and USB security features."
"The security is good."
"I've mainly found the antivirus and antispyware features valuable. The documentation is okay as well."
"The most valuable features of the solution are that it is easy to use and has good support."
"ZTNA can improve latency."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"Reporting could be improved. I would like to see how many security incidents occurred in the last six months, how many devices were highly exposed to security risks, and how many devices were actually compromised."
"The scanning is slow when it is working with incoming emails."
"I am not sure if I will be using this product in the future because of the price."
"The central console needs improvement. Both McAfee and Symantec antivirus have dashboards. These integrate with a server and work on my antivirus or some other product. However, with Microsoft Defender, you use Microsoft Group Policy Object. Defender does not provide a central console. Therefore, if you implement Defender, then maybe use another tool for the central view."
"The scalability could be improved - I would rate it between a seven and an eight."
"We encountered some misbehavior between Microsoft Office Suite and Defender. We had issues of old macros being blocked and some stuff going around the usage of Win32 APIs. There is some improvement between the Office products and Defender, and there is a bunch of stuff that you can configure in your antivirus solutions, but you have several baselines, such as security baselines for Edge, security baselines for Defender, and security baselines for MDM. You have configuration profiles as well. So, there a lot of parts where we can configure our antivirus solution, and we're getting conflicting configurations. This is the major part with which we're struggling in this solution. We are having calls and calls with Microsoft for getting rid of all configuration conflicts that we have. That's really the part that needs to be improved."
"With regards to the interface, a challenge I found was that there was not enough documentation on how to tune it. I had to read multiple sources on the internet to learn how to configure the tool appropriately."
"Sometimes the software doesn't work the way we expect it to, and in those cases, we can't communicate with a device because it may be infected."
"The product doesn’t offer MDM functionality under its current licensing model."
"It is not possible to buy it from the company itself, or resellers in other countries. If it is available, I see that it is offered as part of a larger service. For me, this was not suitable."
"It would be beneficial to have more integration and compatibility with other platforms."
"I think we have experienced some technical issues because the company focuses mainly on bigger clients. Also, sometimes the solution fails to detect zero-day attacks, so that feature needs some enhancement because it is lacking compared to other solutions."
"They need to improve their cloud presence."
"That's why I wouldn't recommend it for other systems. It works only with SAP clients. That's why I'm giving it a six. It would get higher if it worked on all networks without the help of SAP."
"They do need to minimize the number of agents installed on a server."
"The solution’s scalability and stability could be improved."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 182 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is ranked 25th in Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) with 28 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0, while Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response writes "A highly stable and affordable solution for detecting and preventing security threats". Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Fortinet FortiClient, whereas Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response is most compared with Trend Vision One, Kaspersky Endpoint Detection and Response Expert, Bitdefender GravityZone EDR, CrowdStrike Falcon and Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS). See our Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs. Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response report.
See our list of best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.