Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

It just works. We have a console, and I can see it at a glance. I don't have any problems with it at all.

I can push the client out. All the antivirus updates are managed from a single central point, and it just works. 

It would be interesting if Symantec Endpoint protection could also manage Windows Defender. If they were to add a feature, it would be nice if you could see the Symantec client and the Windows Defender client in case you choose to deploy both.

I have been using this solution for 15 years.

We haven't had any problems with it.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security an eight out of 10. We haven't had any problems with it. It just works.

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.

The application and device control are valuable features, and the live update is another one. We have a schedule to check every four hours for the live update.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Symantec End-point production doesn't support the EDR function.

There are certain drawbacks regarding deployment. We have to leverage other things like PPM.
Another major drawback is that we can't do the deployment from the console itself. We have to depend on other products technically.

The reporting is not as good.

Check detection could be improved as well.

I've been using it for three years.

The support from Broadcom has been good.

The initial setup was straightforward. I think it's automatically configured, so we didn't have to do anything.

If you only want the Endpoint Protection solution, you can go with Symantec End-User Endpoint Security. It is an awesome solution.

However, in the case of a large user base, and you also have to take care of the deployment etc., then I would not recommend this solution.

I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security at six on a scale from one to ten.

We are not satisfied with the technical support. Since Broadcom took over responsibility for its engagement, we have faced many issues. This is why we wish to switch to a different antivirus solution. We are currently in contact with the relevant distributors and suppliers in regards to this issue. We do not wish to encounter the same challenges that we face at present. Before switching to Sophos, we would first have to ensure that all our support-related concerns are addressed.

When an issue happens in my cell, we can log in a ticket on the Symantec or Broadcom websites. From this point, the response time is very slow. Sometimes technical support lacks a proper or firsthand knowledge of an issue and finds itself lacking in the appropriate response. We feel this to be very irritating. The customer wishes for the issue to be resolved, but tech support has shown itself to be inadequate in dealing with enterprise tech products. 

We have been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for the last five or six years. 

We are not satisfied with the technical support and find it greatly lacking.

In the past we worked with Sophos, although not with its antivirus product but with Cyberoam Firewall. We recently purchased a new Sophos firewall product, Sophos 101, which is a network firewall solution. The difference is that we did not previously have the appropriate experience with related antivirus products, but now we are in a position to analyze how best Sophos endpoint protection can meet our needs. 

While the solution is easy to use, it is solely because of the support issues we raised that we plan to switch products. 

When it comes to pricing, Sophos is preferable to Symantec. It provides a cloud-based dashboard which affords control and an easy centralized management system. This is of considerable benefit and explains why we have decided to go with Sophos. 

Owing to the support issues we raised, we can only rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security as a five out of ten. 

We are using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for our network security solution to protect us against threats, such as malicious software and websites.

The solution is easy to manage.

The solution already has support for Windows, Mac, and Linux but it could improve by having better support for Linux. We have run into some problems when there are upgrades. If they can improve this point, Symantec would be good for endpoint protection as well as for a critical server.

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

When we were not able to find a solution to issues we are having we have contacted technical support. There are times we created a support ticket in the morning and they respond in the evening when we are not available. However, they have been helpful and eventually provide us with a solution, it can take a bit of time.

The installation is not difficult for Windows and Mac OS it will autonomically install, based on the schedule we plan. However, for Linux, we could not do the installation from the Symantec manager and needed to install it one by one on the servers. 

One great benefit is we do not need to activate a license for every endpoint. The price is fair.

I have evaluated McAfee and Kaspersky.

Symantec was bought recently by Broadcom and this could be a reason some might not want to purchase the solution because of their background. However, this solution is popular and competitive with other solutions, such as McAfee or Kaspersky.

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

We primarily use the solution for endpoint protection for the workstations. It's desktop protection, basically. 

The auto-discovery capabilities are great. 

The solution offers very good security features and is comparable to Sophos. 

The solution is quite stable. 

Sophos's ransomware protection gives you some kind of comparative advantage over Symantec. Symantec needs to be better in this regard.

The monitoring capabilities could be further developed. For example, you get Sophos Central in Sophos. In Symantec, I don't know if there is an equivalent. You can actually manage and do deployment across the various geo-locations on every single point, however, Sophos is a cross-platform solution and Symantec is not. 

Sophos Central gives me a one-stop-shop on one page that allows me to monitor all activities going on in my network. Symantec doesn't have that.

The initial setup can be a bit complex.

The scalability could be a bit easier.

We're not too happy with the level of technical support we get.

The pricing is okay, however, it could be more competitive.

I've been using the solution for ten years at this point. It's been about a decade. We've used it for a long time. 

The solution is very stable. We have no complaints. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability of the product is decent. I'd rate the ease of scalability at a seven or eight out of ten.

The support hasn't been fantastic lately. It can be better. We're not very satisfied overall. They need to be more helpful and responsive. 

I use Symantec, however, I also use Sophos. I use Sophos for endpoint protection for my server. I use Symantec for my email workstations, et cetera.

For Symantec, it's sometimes a bit complex or difficult - especially when you're setting it up. It's not straightforward when you have to set it up, specifically from the server. On top of that, the administrative side is not a piece of cake. You have a lot of items you need to take care of. 

The pricing is decent. It falls within an acceptable range. However, if the goal is to draw more clients, it could be a bit less expensive. 

If you do a comparison between Symantec and Sophos, then you can easily see the comparative advantages Sophos has over Symantec. Symantec should study it in order to gain an edge in the industry and to better understand the areas to improve on, and what additional features to add.

I'd rate the product at an eight out of ten.

On each desktop, we have Symantic End-User Endpoint Security installed to control the use of any unauthorized software, any unauthorized files being downloaded to the workstations, and so on.

It is a scalable product and is average stability-wise.

As for improvement, it would be good to have Symantic End-User Endpoint Security integrate more with other cloud computing providers rather than being a standalone product.

The spam filter is something that you can't control, and you can't set the filter to intercept different types of emails. We certainly don't have any control over what can be adjusted in the actual filter. So, we still have a 50/50 chance of a suspect email being legitimate or not.

It would be good if they can partner with one of the other big players who provides enterprise software that includes it with the product rather than having to buy their software separately.

I've been using it for the last two years.

Stability-wise, this solution is average. Because it's not cloud-based, where it's being updated continuously, there are times when it displays something on all the workstations and disables the workstations. We then would have to call the consultant to come in and apply some updates.

It is scalable. It's being used universally by all workstations in my organization. We have 10 users.

We have not had a positive experience with technical support. 

Implementation was done remotely by the provider to the actual domain server. A consultant performed the implementation.

The licensing costs are huge compared to what is normally included in the licensing with other products such as the Microsoft products that we're using. We're paying between $300 and $400 per seat.

If you have the opportunity to have an integrated security product, go with it instead of Symantic End-User Endpoint Security.

It does what it says on the box, but there are so many other products that do the same thing but better. So, I would rate Symantic End-User Endpoint Security at seven on a scale from one to ten.