Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

• Primary endpoint protection for our office. 

It was replaced with my MSP's contracted solution, but that's being replaced by our own solution.

It protected well enough, but we ran Malwarebytes in conjunction to help protect against zero-day exploits/malware issues that occasionally slipped through.

We were disappointed that we were stuck with its local admin server for so long when other solutions had cloud management.

• An easier management portal
• Setting up and managing profiles was overly complex
• An easier cloud management portal would be appreciated.

The primary key is because it doesn't impact much in the performance of the endpoint.

For me, the end point is almost a commodity. So, an advantage with Symantec is the integration. The integration with our two directories for taking control to administrate people, and then follow up with the segmentation to different people. To be able to manage a subset of the endpoint registering the solution, the distribution is in geographical sounds. The dashboard can be emailed, and I can receive the solution.

I find the most valuable features are the security features that have been developed in the past few years. 

A good improvement would be altering the console in the console manager. Sometimes we need to add and improve the security to access to the console because the indicators and we can take management activities into the console, and it's, nice to have to improve the security access to the console.

It is very stable. I do not have any problems with it at all. 

I only use the technical support once or twice a year. I find that sometimes they are a bit slow to find a solution. 

The most imprortant criteria for me to find a proper solution in this sphere are:

• Knowledge of the market
• Study of the solution

I also looked at McAffe, but I noticed that Symantec was the better performing solution when I researched respected user performance.

My primary use case for this is protecting the end user against cyber attacks. It is a simple product that is easily implemented on all of our hosts and servers.  It is especially helpful on our exchange server.

The Symantec product helps us protect ourselves against the Trojan horse. It reduces risk. As a financial institution, we are constantly at risk of attack.

I find the most valuable feature is that the product works on Linux and Microsoft Windows.  I think it is one of the best solutions to implement or host IPs.

In the future, I think there should be a sandboxing feature. Some of the most used endpoint protection does not include sandboxing. We cannot rely on URL filtering or IP repetition. Sometimes attacks can pass through the firewall.  

In addition, this product must be compatible with a VMware environment. Because most of our server has VMware. It seems that its not working very well with VMware.

Finally, they need to do some effort to make it a little bit sly. They have to make some improvement in order to not make the computer slow during all of the backend scanning.

It is a product that is simple and is working fine.

It is scalable because it is easy to use and it is fond of multiple features, using the management console.

I am not directly involved with the support team, one of my colleagues handles this communication.

The initial setup was very easy. It took about 2-3 minutes to be up and start downloading all updates on the PC's. You don't have to do anything more because it has an ability to work on Linux and Microsoft Windows products also.

The most important criteria for us is the price and the licensing. 

Our company used Norton Anti-Virus previously.  But, I was not at the company during that time.

It's a good proxy to control the user's access to the website. 

We never expect downtime. There is also great ease of use for my admins.

We have no issues with the scalability of the product. 

It's amazing. They have the local support team always here, and they also have the international level team.

I'm based out in Dubai, so we purchase these products through channel partners. There are a certain level of channel partners, like platinum or gold or silver. 

It is not cheap. 

I also have experience using Forcepoint and Websense Content Gateway. 

It is one of the best products out there. They are to the mark. 

It has made anti-virus and security management much easier. Also, it has really lowered the time required to manage all of the endpoints, resulting in higher efficiency, and a better efficiency/cost ratio. It has a really good cost-benefit.

The centralized console is great for us. It gives us one centralized console to manage all of the endpoints.

Also, it is reliable and gives us quick updates. The overall system is responsive and doesn't choke up too much when running Endpoint Protection.

It would be nice to be able to manage the endpoints a bit further. A valuable attribute would be the management of software inventory, software deployment, and third-party software deployment. I would like to see the ability to deploy and delete unlicensed software. Many users try to install what they shouldn't, so that would be really useful.

What would be really great would be to have the ability t manage those applications that you don't need to install to run. Those are a nightmare for companies, for mine as well. Applications like BitTorrent and unsupported browsers, all of those. Even with decreased user privileges, they are still able to run, so that's a big area to focus on in the future.

The stability is great. I have no issues.

Its scalability is great, no question.

I have dealt with technical support twice. One was related to an install issue, and that was quickly resolved. It was an old operating system. In one night it was fixed with no issues. They have good support overall.

Previously we were using McAfee, and we switched to Symantec for ease of operation and stability. This solution has much better performance than McAfee.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are price and performance.

Other vendors that we evaluated were Kaspersky and McAfee.

If someone else is researching this type of solution, I would say go for it and try this solution because overall, it is one of the best, if not the best product on the market. It's really great, especially for mid-sized companies. It really cuts down the management.

I would rate this solution a nine because of the support and the quality of the product.

Primary usage is on endpoints, desktops, clients, and servers, and it's working okay.

It blocks malware, as it is supposed to.

We're able to tune it to work with our products.

I would like to see even more customization, the possibility to do whitelisting. It needs to be a little bit more liberal on whitelisting, even to use the name if needed, instead of hashes.

Stability is good.

We only have 10,000 endpoints so it's not that much, but it's working.

Depending on who you end up with, it can take a while before you get the correct support.

The out-of-the-box functionality, the vanilla setup, is okay, but then tuning is needed. Overall the setup is straightforward.

My most important criterion when selecting a vendor is that they are easy to work with.

I rate it at eight out of 10. When, say, Microsoft releases a new OS version twice a year, you never know if the current version of Symantec Endpoint Protection will support it. You can have a lag between when Microsoft releases a new client - and then the current version doesn't work correctly - and it could be some months between updates from Symantec.

Overall, it's really good product. It has saved us a lot of time and, most of the time, it's a self-playing piano.

I use it as an antivirus.

For protection use only.

I would like to see fileless attack protection. Also, the version could be lighter.

It is stable.

No scalability issues.

We have not used it.

We switched to a new solution because we wanted more security and protection features.

The initial setup is straightforward. Though, make sure to check the system requirements before deploying it.

The vendors on our shortlist were Trend Micro and Kaspersky.

We are satisfied with it.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: 

• The support team
• Good reviews/reputation.

Endpoint protection. The performance has been adequate, not great.

The biggest benefit right now is that we have a lot of people who know it well. Based on what we've seen, we don't think it's the best solution out there. But it catches basic things.

Protecting data, protecting end-points.

The biggest thing I would like to see is malware remediation, if there is some kind of outbreak. We'd like to see better remediation and better detection and response. It's pretty good at capturing things, but it doesn't stop everything, so better machine learning would be helpful.

It has been around a while but I don't think it has successfully made the jump into next-generation features, like a lot of its competitors have.

It's fairly scalable. It meets our needs from a scalability standpoint.

Symantec tech support is fairly good, a little hard to get a hold of sometimes, but fairly good overall.

We are switching because we don't feel that Symantec as a company is keeping up with next-generation trends. They just seem to be resting on their accomplishments too much and don't seem like they are progressive.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor are a highly rated, good product - that factor is at the top of the list. Also, good functionality, good support, good price, and good margins, since we resell.

We have been working with Sophos for a couple of years now, and we finally decided to make it official and move forward with them instead of Symantec. I like the Sophos story. I like their solution. I like their holistic approach. And their support is really great.

I would rate Symantec's solution a six out of 10. It's not as feature-rich with next-generation technology, as a lot of its competitors are.

My advice would be, look at something else. Don't look at Symantec. Look for something that has a more holistic approach.