Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

We are a small enterprise. Our primary use case of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is for malicious websites and malware attacks.

The solution is easy to use.

The product must be uploaded, keeping all the sites with threats and virus signatures. We have to deploy or push EXE files to the endpoints like Kaspersky.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for two years.

Symantec is stable.

This product is scalable.

Technical support is good.

The deployment was very easy.

Symantec End-User is not expensive.

Before choosing Symantec, I tried Apex One from Trend Micro. Symantec is better because it is more up to date with viruses and malware signatures. 

I would rate this solution a 7 out of 10. You have to follow the updates and monitor Symantec.

We used Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for a thin client for our servers and the full package for the user's systems.

Some of the most valuable features were antivirus, malware, and spyware. They were really good.

We had trouble with the advanced features, such as the firewall builder and all the network protection modules. We were having a lot of issues because it would sometimes block users or the printing, or it would create issues with the network access resources.

We were using the on-premise version of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security and one of the reasons to use the on-premise versions was to save the network traffic from the cloud. However, because we deployed the full package, the client's computers were really slow most of the time. End-user used to complain that their computers are running slow. It was not only the antivirus because the user had to run other applications as well, in parallel. As soon as we removed Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, the user did see a lot of improvement in their hardware performance, such as the CPU usage being lower and memory resources going down. 

The background scanning performance should be improved because it makes the computers run slow and we had the latest hardware, but it was still having issues. Their engine needs to be improved for the scanning.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for 10 years.

The solution is stable.

We had more than 10 users using this solution in my organization.

The installation is straightforward. The full deployment took approximately two weeks.

We did the implementation of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security ourselves.

We have one person that supports this solution.

We are phasing out the use of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security in my company and we only have a small number of systems using it at this time.

We plan to switch to Cisco Secure Endpoint.

I rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a seven out of ten.

The solution is used for detection and endpoint protection against threats and malware. 

I like that the solution can be scaled to deal with different threats. The same agent will be integrated into different Symantec products, which obviates the need to deploy multiple agents. This keeps things very small and effective. 

The solution should have more integration with other platforms. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach to the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be resolved concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for over a year.

The solution is stable. 

The solution can be scaled to handle different threats. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open. 

The installation is straightforward.

The deployment lasts two hours. 

The licensing terms can range from subscription-based to perpetual, to annual, to tri-annual. 

Broadcom's support is friendly and very professional. However, in Pakistan, the support team takes more time than Trend Micro or Sophos to reach the bottom, as their policies are under review. A strategy should be employed to open this to Pakistan, as well. As such, a delay occurs, something which occasionally comes about indirectly. The support itself is good, but the issue which needs to be addressed concerns the promptness with which an assigned engineer can address each ticket we open.

The Symantec footprint in Pakistan was once very big, numbering 40,000 endpoints which were deployed by us and more than 20,000 by other partners in the banking sector, although now it is considerably smaller. 

The solution can be deployed both on-premises and on-cloud. 

At one point in time, we had 20 customers. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

I rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security as an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case of this product is endpoint security. We use it to secure our environment and endpoints—the basic purpose of antivirus products. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. 

One of the most valuable features is its antivirus database, which is current and updated daily. Another valuable feature is its capacity to be managed by a single server. The solution is managed by a secure server, so all the endpoints are managed from a central point. 

For me, Symantec has been working fine. I'm not dealing with security inside the company, I'm just in the network part, so I can't think of any suggestions for improvement. 

As for some features I would like to see, I'd like a retrospective action feature similar to Cisco Secure Endpoint's. Some antiviruses don't allow you to re-scan a product that was in the former scan—for example, if a file was classified as proper, but then for some reason the file was changed, we need an antivirus with retrospective capability. We need EPP and EDR products in a secured environment. 

We have been using this product for more than 10 years. 

This product is stable. We've been using it for 10 years, and I can say that it has been stable. 

Basically, once the product is installed on the server, there is no maintenance to do. Maybe there are some updates, moving from a lower to a higher version, but this is the main maintenance that people do. 

This product is easy to scale. Normally, such a product isn't easy to scale nor to manage, but this solution is user-friendly and isn't complicated to manage. In my company, this product is deployed on all the workstations—more than 1,700 PCs.

I'm not dealing with this product on the front line—it's managed by my colleagues on the security team—but I think Symantec's technical support is fine. If we ever have an issue, I think we raise a ticket to Symantec's support center, and they take care of us. 

Deploying Symantec is easy—when you install it, you click "next," "next," "next," and then you update the antivirus. When you start, it's already directly in production. For me, the initial setup was not a big deal. We deployed this solution internally. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

We are currently testing Cisco Secure Endpoint for endpoint protection, and we have been using it for one year. I prefer it because Cisco is one of the big network and security vendors, so when they sell a product, they're sure about the whole performance of the product. The product must have a good reputation because the brand itself says something. 

I rate Symantec End User Endpoint Security an eight out of ten, and would recommend it to others. 

We are using it for endpoint security and EDR and as an antivirus. We are also using it for threat detection purposes.

It is on-prem. We didn't migrate to the cloud.

The features are very nice. We are getting updates continuously from the Symantec side regarding any attacks, such as zero-day attacks. Symantec helps us in mitigating any attacks or threats early. 

Whenever we have any issues regarding the endpoints, Symantec is very helpful in resolving those issues.

They provide the updates of the client, and those clients need a reboot after the upgrade, which is something we don't like. We don't like to reboot the server after the upgrade because we have live applications. If we do a reboot, it can impact the business as well.

It sometimes behaves unusually. It sometimes stops our full services, and if we didn't upgrade to the better version or current version on the server, many a time, it blocks Microsoft patch upgrades. 

I have been working with this solution for around four years.

It is good. We don't have to worry much about bugs. We had a bug only once where we had not allowed for automatic upgrades, but it was upgrading. From the perspective of bugs, Symantec is fine.

I would rate them an eight out of 10. Sometimes, it takes a lot of time to connect to Symantec through a call. They usually reply by email. They are also reachable on call, but it takes lots of time to connect to them by phone.

Positive

It is complex. All servers report to SEPM, then after SEPM, they report to EP. It is complex and not straightforward. We have different environments for inside, outside, and DMZ. So, for that, it is kind of complex.

Its price is fair.

It is a very good solution. Symantec is a traditional antivirus, and among all traditional antivirus solutions, Symantec is very good. It has good updates.

I would advise others to go for the cloud environment. The cloud environment is very good, and there are a lot of new features.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is a good product.

It's a robust product.

There are several new products that offer better protection.

The artificial intelligence of Symantec End-User Endpoint Security could be better.

The web filter could be improved.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for more than 10 years.

It's a stable product, very robust.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is a scalable product.

We have 500 users in our organization.

I have not contacted technical support.

Apart from Symantec End-User Endpoint Security, I use other platforms. We have many different systems, such as Sandbox products, and other EDRs.

The installation is very easy.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a nine out of ten.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is used for network security.

The administrator's console is very good and easy to manage with it. Deploying patches, definition updates and report is simple.

I have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for approximately nine years.

The solution is very stable.

Symantec End-User Endpoint Security is scalable.

We have approximately 850 endpoint clients using the solution.

The support from Symantec has been poor in my experience. They did not have the knowledge to help us with the issues we were facing.

I have evaluated Kaspersky, CrowdStrike, and Sophos solutions.

I would recommend Symantec End-User Endpoint Security to others. However, I would advise people before implementing the solution they have all the support channels in place to manage it.

In the case of the software-as-a-service, nowadays, companies are looking to outsource the entire operations. I do not want my employees using the solution for anything, such as monitoring the application. We are looking for an implementation partner or the OEM itself where they deploy the solution and monitor it with only one management team. If there is an issue, they notify us. if there are not any issues then they can send regular, weekly, or monthly reports.

I rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security a six out of ten.

We haven't had problems with the product recently.

The solution does the job.

It seems to be user-friendly. Our users seem to like it for the most part. 

Every time an OS comes out, I have to upgrade the Symantec product. They don't know how to patch it. If they would produce a patch instead of uninstalling or installing over the current version and rebooting I'd be a lot happier with the product. 

As far as what it attacks and how good it is and its job I don't really care. It drives me nuts because every time I have to do a feature update it requires a new version of SAP. Then, I have to go through the silly process of putting it into the configuration manager, running tests and upgrading it, and making customers reboot their machines. It should make a pass and be done with it.

We've had Symantec for many years. It's likely been 10 plus years.

We haven't been too happy with technical support, We'd like them to be more helpful and responsive. 

We deploy the solution ourselves. 

I don't have any insights into the pricing or licensing aspects of the product.

We were looking at Microsoft Defender Antivirus due to the fact that we were looking at switching away from Symantec.

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'm a client guy, I'm not the security team that inspects the end product. My team deploys it and we have a configuration manager that makes sure it's deployed correctly. We have staging processes around Windows 10 and policies, et cetera, however, as far as inspecting it, that's not up to us. It's not our mandate. It's the security team that makes the decisions about the products we use. 

While our current version is on-prem, everything's going to the cloud. If we stay with it, maybe that is something we're looking at, however, we have a lot of different security products on our machine and we have applications that our customers use. Hopefully, they're going to decide to get something that combines the five or six other apps that we have that are doing various things beyond slowing our machine down.

I'm not sure if we are on the latest version of the solution. 

My main issue with the product is that I just can't stand the way they force you to upgrade the product instead of putting a simple patch on it.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.