Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

We primarily use the solution to protect our endpoints. There are growing attacks worldwide, and we need to be protected against any eventuality - including malicious attacks or ransomware. We also use the solution to protect endpoints for users that work from home. 

The product is good at alerting users to anomalies.

The detection is pretty good.

The system has been working fine and is quite stable.

The device control has been working impeccably. 

The solution can scale.

We'd like to have a solution that offers a single pane of glass that would allow us to integrate all of our traffic and solutions under one umbrella so that we can look at all the incidents in one place. 

The product needs to be well versed in the security landscape to best protect us from malicious attacks, as we've seen a rise in activity.

The agent shouldn't use up so many resoures at the endpoint when scanning and protecting.

There needs to be better communication, back and forth, between on-site teams and off-site users. If something is happening off-site there should be some sort of logging or details that can be shared with the main office.

The solution needs to do a better job at scanning video links. 

There have been instances where we haven't been able to find the root causes of alerts.

The size of the footprint of the software is too high. It's quite heavy.

Network and cloud scanning coverage needs to be expanded and improved upon.

The functionality could be much better.

There also needs to be more training offers to companies to help understand the technology and its capabilities a bit better. 

Technical support is not great. They are not responsive. 

I've been using the solution for a long time. It's been more than ten years.

For the most part, the stability is okay. 

You can scale the solution very well. It's not an issue as well. However, the support is lacking, and it might deter users from wanting to scale. Even the resellers are warning clients that the support isn't there, and the company is not responding well to queries. 

We have found Symantec's technical support to be very sluggish. They are very slow to respond and alert us to changes. It's quite a problem. Trend Micro, for example, has much better service. Even if you look at Palo Alto, they really work with you and give you complete training. Symantec really doesn't offer its clients much.

We are using Trend Micro. Many customers seem to be moving over to them as they are losing faith in Symantec's support capabilities. 

The initial setup has given us some trouble in the past. We use a Windows server and have had downtime in terms of setting things up. 

They have increased the products of these products recently without any notice. This hasn't gone over well with small clients.

We are customers and end-users.

We use various versions of the solution, according to which Windows versions we are using.

What we would really like is a solution that could really put all of our security under one pane of glass, which Symantec doesn't really do at this time. 

Our concern is having a solution that can keep up with the shifting landscape, as malicious activity is on the rise. We need a solution that is holistic in nature and can help us work with our other in-house solutions and other products writ large.

Also, the company seems to not be very responsive to queries. The resellers are becoming more vocal on these concerns as well. For this reason, we are considering just switching it out altogether.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a good solution for endpoint protection, however, we worry about the lack of support and response from the company.

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.

We use the solution in order to protect all the computers and servers that we are using on the premises to have some controls against some threats. We are using it as anti-malware protection on the Endpoint Security side, and for encryptions for the high-risk drives on the encryption side.

Symantec has similar functionality and characteristics compared to other solutions in the market. However, we found it was easier for us to upgrade Endpoint Encryption. The main characteristic and the main advantage that we saw was that it could handle all the settings through a central point.

The solution, especially in older versions, is quite stable.

The scalability is good.

We have many issues with the way that Symantec is a data entity in our active directory. 

We need to protect all personal devices such as mobile phones. We can't do it at the moment via this product. It is a very important aspect that is missing at this moment. If they could add mobile detection, that would be ideal. Currently, we are using a lot of mobiles as we work from our home. 

The support needs to be better. When we upgrade, we can run into issues, and it's hard to get the help we require.

Newer versions can be a bit less stable.

We've been using the solution for the last eight years, more or less.

The solution is mostly stable, however, when we need to upgrade, at this moment we need help due to the fact that we don't have good technical support locally. 

We have been using older versions, as they are stable versions for us and we don't know how to upgrade completely to the latest version. That is the issue that we have at this moment. We need to be trained, however, we don't have any access to training, especially from Symantec. For the last two years, and it is hard.

The scalability is pretty good. We can increase the number of computers managed by the solution, and we can increase the passes. We have been using these solutions for the last eight years due to the fact that we don't have any kind of problems. 

That said, when we tried to upgrade, when we got the newest features, the newest protections, we had a lot of problems as we don't have any Symantec specialists available for us to help us, to train us, and to give the appropriate support. That is the main issue that we have right now.

Technical support needs to be better. We don't have any specialists available for us. We are located in Latin America. We are located in El Salvador, in Central America. We don't have any specialists available for us in order to help us or to teach us how to solve our problems. We are looking online mostly at this point for some advice in blogs and forums. That's not what our expectations were when we signed up. We open tickets through the webpage and nobody happens. We are a little disappointed in that sense.

We have not moved to another security solution due to the pandemic, as we have been working irregularly. We have been closed for around one and a half years. Then we have been working some days in the office, some days from home. It has not been a good moment for us to change the solutions, however, we are thinking about it, not due to its scalability or stability, or even due to licensing. We have been talking about changing because of the lack of good technical support.

It's easy to set up all the devices that are managed by the active directory, however, many devices that we are using right now to work are not managed by the active directory. For example, cell phones or any other intelligent devices. We can't protect them through Symantec Endpoint Protection, Endpoint Security.

For laptops and desktops managed by the active directory, it's relatively easy to deploy. It's not a problem as we only set a policy when a laptop or server or desktop is added to the active directory so that it's transparent. It's added immediately to the Symantec console in a transparent way. 

The deployment is immediate. With the equipment managed by the active directory, it's five minutes or less.

We are a reseller.

We are using Symantec Endpoint Security and we're using Symantec Endpoint Encryption.

We have it implemented on-premises.

I'd advise other companies to consider the solution. It's necessary. If you have a good team of specialists around you, it's a good option.

The most important thing is to have someone to help you, especially if all of your users are working regularly from different places, with different issues, with different connections through your infrastructure. If you don't have the skills, or you don't have good advisers or good technicians to help you, you are lost. 

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

We're a large company with half of our business in the UK and half throughout the rest of Europe. We deal with about 13 countries and I work from Serbia. Our business focuses on train and bus transport, and sometimes ferry services. We're using the solution to mitigate security risks. We were considering solutions for endpoint protection and decided to go with Symantec for our work stations and servers. It offers anti-malware plus a firewall and some other functionalities. I'm an IT manager. 

I like the antivirus and the local firewall that the solution provides. It's user friendly with a good dashboard. 

I'd like to see a full anti-ransomware solution because there are some anti-ransomware functionalities that would assist us if they were included in the solution. 

I've been using Symantec End-User Endpoint Security for about six years.

The solution is very stable. 

We're not a big business in Serbia but scalability is easy. We have around 160 workstations and about 130 users. 

We have a contract with the local Symantec partner in Serbia so we can speak to them in our language. The support is very good. 

The initial setup is rather simple. 

The license for this solution is purchased on an annual bases. The price could be cheaper but it's not too bad. We also pay for technical support which we get locally here in Serbia.

Symantec is not the only endpoint security solution that we actually have experience with but I would recommend it. I think it's one of the best solutions currently on the market.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are service providers. We use this solution for endpoint response and detections.

We use this in the banking sector regularly.

We also use it for automatic threat protection and for DLP (Data Loss Protection).

After selling this product, what we have observed is that the system gets slower, which is a major issue.

We would also like to see better pricing. It's almost double when compared to other products.

I have been using this solution for more than seven years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution.

It is scalable. If you get the proper licenses then it scales well. There are no issues with scalability.

We are service providers with many different clients. Some of our customers have 100 users, whereas others have 200, and even as many as 300.

We have completed several installations but have never contacted technical support.

We do a direct installation. It is cloud-based and we can create a diary on the Symantec site.

We create the ID and download the client package.

It can take five to seven minutes to install per node.

If it is in the same network, we don't require much manpower to maintain it. All of the usernames and passwords are in the system. We can deploy remote deployment and installation.

Symantec is expensive. 

When compared with Trend Micro and Sophos, it is expensive.

Customers are required to purchase a license.

We recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. In some organizations, it is compulsory to use Symantec.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary reason we use the solution is to protect the device and to be sure there isn't any kind of malware. The device is protected from any kind of malware is the basic level of the solution. We use the control applications to blacklist applications that we don't need to use, and that we have blocked on the Microsoft group policy. We use the antivirus to do the same thing. That way, if the final user tries to install any non-approved software, the antivirus removes or blocks the application.

The protection against any kind of malware is the most important feature of this product. It really helps to keep the operations system clean.

The product has been quite stable.

We've found the scalability to be very good.

Today, it's just a question of understanding the update package of the operating system as the antivirus software in and of itself is not enough.

This is due to the fact that if I have not updated Windows, I have a huge breach of security. The idea for us, from our point of view, is that the antivirus needs to understand how if Windows is safe. If the operating system is safe, the antiviral has less work to do. From a security point of view, both of them need to work together. It's not just the task of the antivirus to keep all the computers safe. The operating system needs to be updated too.

The operating system and the antivirus need to communicate better with each other and exchange information so that I know everything is secure. It needs to be more clear when things aren't aligned and need to be repaired, in order to avoid the risk of a security breach.

The technical support could be a bit better.

We've been using the solution for just about a year or so. I'm quite new to the company. That said, it's my understanding that the company has been using the solution for about six years or so.

The stability is very good. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's quite good.

We have no problem with scalability so far. We are a growing team and company and so far it's been growing with us. It scales well. 

As of today, we have around 4,000 users, however, we are still growing.

Technical support is a bit of an issue. In Brazil, when we need technical support we use a partner. Every time that we contact Symantec, it will take a long time to get the answer. The primary contact is the partner who implements the software here. It's a local company from Brazil that handles all the support information and services for us. We just needed to make contact with Symantec one time however, the answer was so long that the partner got the answer to us first and therefore we really stopped trying to directly reach out.

We don't have too much trouble with deploying the solution. 

We have a policy software that controls all the policies and deploys with the software. I really don't know too much beyond that, however, as we have a security team that handled the installation, deployment, and maintenance. I haven't heard anything negative, however, which makes me assume everything is very straightforward.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. The fee was paid last year, however, I don't have access to the exact costs. It may have been renewed before I started working with the company.

Today, we are looking at Kaspersky. We want to see if it can handle dealing with Windows updates in a better way than Symantec. They have some interesting features that take a pretty deep look inside the Windows system in order to protect it. We feel the antivirus needs to go farther into the Windows system and down to the endpoints themselves and really take a look around in order to effectively protect it from attacks. We're currently searching for more information to see how Kaspersky stacks up.

The pricing is also quite different between the two solutions and this may affect our decision as well.

We're just a customer and end-user.

I'm finding that, in Brazil, Symantec's services need to be closer to the customer and the antivirus itself is not enough for an IT department to keep the company safe. It can't just protect user data. It needs to go further and protect all of the company's devices and software. 

I can have the best antivirus software, however, we find that if our Windows disk is not updated or has a security branch, something can attack the security branch in the Windows and sometimes it's a virus software. That's why Windows needs to work more closely with this product - or any antivirus.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.