Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

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.

I am using this solution for protecting myself from outside dangers. I am not using it on a daily basis. I open it very rarely. I open it only when I get an alert that I have got a suspicious file or something like that. I then go to the quarantine zone to check it.

The most valuable feature is that I don't feel that it is there. It works in the background and doesn't interfere with my daily work. All the scans are done in the background. This is the biggest advantage of this product. 

It works because I have never been infected since I have been using this solution. Its interface is also very good.

It can maybe send notifications when there is an update and everything is successful.

We have been using this solution for the entire life of our organization. It has probably been ten years.

It is completely stable. There are no issues. I don't find it slowing my laptop. I don't know if my laptop is powerful or the application doesn't take too many resources. A few years ago, the antivirus was slowing down computers and laptops, but now, I don't feel any such issue.

We have about 700 employees in our company, and a lot of them are using the same protection system.

I have an IT department that gives me technical support.

We did not use any other products in our organization. We have only been using Symantec products.

I was not involved in its installation. It was set up on the laptop before I got it from the IT department.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is a stable product. I would keep on using it unless my company decides otherwise.

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

We're primarily using this solution for our workstations.

The product is a good antivirus in terms of the fact that it can do real-time scanning and scheduling. We can plan scans for the weekend. We can also control it on the server for all the clients it manages. 

The solution gets real-time updates of virus definition files from the internet. If there is any malware attack or something, then it can immediately download and apply it to the clients.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The pricing is pretty good. We don't find it too expensive to have in our organization.

We've had some issues with the performance. There have been some minor hiccups. Now it's better. Initially, it had some issues, not for all, but some of the systems only. We had applied a fix that was released in the 14.1 version. By 14.2 they fixed the issue. Ever since we applied 14.2, it's good.

During the scanning time, it could be less intrusive for the users. Right now, it's not exactly working quietly in the background.

Technical support could be more responsive.

I've been using the solution for six years at this point. It's been a while since we began working with it.

While we've had issues with stability in the past, since version 14.2 it hasn't been a problem. We no longer have issues.

The resources can be expanded with more load and all, however, I'm not sure how scalable it is in terms of expanding it.

Internally, there are likely 800 users that use this product.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. They are okay, however, they could be faster in their response time. We're not fully satisfied with their level of service.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup is not too complex. It's pretty simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have too much trouble with the implementation.

The installation of the server would have taken few hours, however, on the client site we attracted an automated installation, so it deployed from the server and we can pose the agent to the server from the client.

We had a manager and two consultants that handled the implementation.

We had a consultant assist us with the client.

We need licenses to use the product, however, the pricing is reasonable. It's not too expensive.

I'd recommend the solution. I'd rate it at an eight out of ten.

We use it for endpoint protection at the desktop level.

The antivirus and antimalware features are good. Reporting is also pretty good.

The platform itself can be improved as there's no way to track how infections get into the organization. You're just notified if there is an instance. Still, there's no way to actually determine a workflow of how it actually came in, how it was executed, and how it was distributed within the enterprise if indeed it did migrate or propagate through.

It would be really good if they had a proactive feature to isolate the node with the agent on the endpoint when it sees some type of erroneous behavior and knock it off the network. Then it can't probably get onto another node. You can usually do that with a policy setting.

It'll also help if they give us more of an explanation of what the malware tries to do once it's on the network. For example, if it's trying to call home to a specific IP or domain. We can use that information to beef up the firewall rules.

Case in point, we had an issue where we had a machine that was affected. It immediately tried to find other machines on that network segment with the same vulnerability to infect that particular node. There was no way to lock that node down immediately when you see something out of the ordinary.

I have been using Symantec Endpoint Protection for about 13 years.

Stability has been fair. There have been some issues with the CPU utilization on some of the endpoints. A little bit of a resource hog, but we've been able to work through it for the most part.

Symantec Endpoint Protection scaled very well. It's actually very easy to use.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It probably took an afternoon or maybe a day to install and deploy. 

I implemented Symantec Endpoint Protection by myself. 

We usually go on a per-seat basis, and it's usually yearly. The prices fluctuate, but this year I think it was maybe around $12,000. If you're looking at the on-prem costs for the virtual server and the licensing for the server, that would be the only extra cost.

Symantec Endpoint Protection is very straightforward to implement. The installation of the septum server on-prem is very straightforward, and you can push the radio to your endpoints almost instantly. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Symantec Endpoint Protection a six.

We use the solution as endpoint security.

The Sandboxing and ATP functionality does not integrate very well, improving this would be helpful. Additionally, having a single console that allows interaction with other security products would be great.

A lot of people have moved to their homes because of the pandemic and this has made endpoint security a crucial part of our protection against threats. Having full integration is very important for all the hardware to work together. If there is any strange network behaviour, all the hardware should work the first time to bring the security flaw forward to be actioned and solved. This only can happen if there are proper communication and integration with other hardware products.

I have been using the solution for approximately seven years.

I have been using the solution for a long while, it has been stable.

I have found the solution to be very scalable, we have 700 employees using the solution in our organization.

The customer service was good.

Before using this solution we used Trend Micro and McAfee. We have currently changed solutions and no longer use Symantec End-user Endpoint Security and we are back with Trend Micro.

The installation was very easy for us to manage, it was not a problem at all.

We used a partner to help us with the implementation and the full deployment took approximately one month. We currently have one administrator and a few engineers to manage the maintenance and deployment of the solution.

There are subscription costs, we typically purchase the annual subscription. There can be other expenses too, for example, we use CrowdStrike also as part of our policy.

We currently use Micro Trend because of our partnership company uses it with over 100 organizations.

I do not recommend the solution because we are using a different one currently.

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

The primary use case for this solution is to protect all endpoints in a complex enterprise environment, including it's servers, workstation, Citrix-based systems, includes Windows, Linux and Macs. We're a small company, under 50 users. But we deploy Symantec to companies that have from a few hundred to dozens of thousand users, therefore I have extensive experience with the product. We are partners and resellers and I'm a senior professional services engineer. 

All the features are great with the core being antivirus, spyware, Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Machine Learning, and capabilities like reputation analysis based on their huge footprint, firewall, IPS and device control are very useful at protecting the environment. Unfortunately many companies just use the basic, out of the box solution. Even when they turn on the firewall, they will use it just with its default settings, but if you really learn how to use it and deploy it correctly, it provides much more protection. With Symantec adopting the AI and many of the new protection features like file-less attacks and other modern technologies, it's very attractive and makes a big difference. EPPs by nature have so many parts to it, they can be daunting, even to those with experience, but once deployed it's quite easy to use.

This is a very complete solution. It has all the pieces that you need. Like many companies, Symantec also sell an EDR solution, and it is a feature you'd want to add to an endpoint solution. 

I think Symantec, like many of its competitors, doesn't have comprehensive built-in reporting. The product keeps improving, but reporting and alerting is not keeping pace, and these are critical.

I've been using this solution for about 13 years. 

This is a very stable solution. 

In terms of scalability, it's one of the best out there. I did a project for a major hotel chain that also has rental properties. Some of these places have five users, and then others have 200 users. When you deploy in a company like that, scalability and the ability to protect remote places without having to put a server out there, is critical. And Symantec just really scales up. It's very efficient. It can be used in a company that has a lot of remote users, like oil companies with remote locations. It's a solution that allows you to support a worldwide company that might have offices in dozens of countries, and it just works.

The technical support is similar to other companies. You're assigned a low level guy on your first call. We don't have issues with the basic things, it's more about the bigger problems so we always have to escalate and they do a good job of it.

The initial setup is super easy. Deployment is faster than in other solutions but it still takes time. It needs to be done in steps. You initiate it with a test and pilot to discover false positives or whether it might be blocking things or creating an issue on your network. A lot of companies have custom code programs and typically any EEP would trigger false positives. The companies we deploy to are generally medium or large so you have to be strict on your load because the impact can be brutal if not done right. You then carry out an expanded pilot and once you're satisfied that it's not going to bring your network down, you deploy it almost at once. You go from deploying it to 25 endpoints as a test to maybe 200 endpoints as an expanded pilot, and then you deploy it to 5,000 computers over a relatively short period of time.

We generally offer up to a six-month window for implementation and it usually takes between two weeks to six months to fully deploy. The process isn't difficult, you just have to be careful. You can deploy all the features in a month if it's a small environment including all the testing and pilot phases. 

My understanding is that the price is quite good and competitive. My advise is to invest the necessary time and effort to deploy it correctly and with minimal disruption. In the enterprise arena, if you don't have the in-house expertise in the more complex areas of the product do your organization a favor and get expert assistance.

Many, there are numerous great solutions in this market and they all offer great protection. The differences are in the feature sets, some for example don't have firewall, device control or Intrusion Preventions, or for example don't have the scalability required to deploy to companies that have hundreds of remote offices that have a few computers and hardly any bandwidth, and they can cause bottlenecks.

It's like any enterprise solution, it needs to be done professionally. People complain about Symantec, claiming it's messed up their system but I've deployed it to hundreds of places of all sizes and have had few issues. The problems are self-induced because the people deploying didn't know what they were doing, and didn't understand the solution. They didn't do the pilot, they didn't do the best practices. And so something happened, messed up the system, and created problems, and they blamed the product. 

This remains a very viable solution. There's a lot of sexier stuff out there, but Symantec brings a lot to the table with their introduction of AI and the latest technologies. They continue to be a well-designed system that just works. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We use the product as an antivirus solution and install it on every end-user machine.  

I think Symantec is a good antivirus solution. There is not really a specific feature that I think stands out. If you consider the protection as a feature, I would say that antivirus protection is the most valuable feature the product has.  

We have had some problems with the Symantec solution. The problems were bad enough that I was compelled to start to research into other products. The biggest issue was the whitelisting feature. The Symantec software has a feature that detects certain things as malicious and it takes care of the issue. It is supposed to do that. Sometimes the things it flags are not real issues — they are essentially false positives. Sometimes there are things we want it to let through that it would otherwise flag. We put these things on a whitelist so they get allowed. We were having a problem keeping a particular file on the whitelist. It was an EXE and Symantec kept flagging it even when it was whitelisted.  

To fix the issue, we had to do in-house software development. We had to run some extra code. The process was not smooth and, in the long run, it basically did not work. The support by Symantec on the issue was of no further help and it remained a problem.  

A feature that seems to be missing from Symantec is reporting on external devices. For example, if a remote user gets a virus on their computer and they are accessing our system, I want to know. The Symantec agent should be checking this in the cloud and informing us that a particular end-user got a virus. I should get a report or alert somehow. The computer in question should be isolated — or something like that — to mitigate the potential of the threat. Instead, nothing happens.   

The enterprise product that we have now does not have that feature. Maybe Symantec has that feature implemented in other products, but I do not know about it. Maybe it is not there at all or maybe it is some type of cloud feature. But the end result is I have looked for the solution in the product, can not find it, support did not inform me that it can be resolved, and we are essentially left with a vulnerability. That is really not acceptable.   

I have been using Symantec Endpoint security for about 2 years.  

It is stable. We do not really have problems with the product crashing.  

Endpoint Security is not that scalable right now because it is hard to even get a new quote. It is part of the problem happening during the transition when they got bought up by Broadcom. The whole process of renewing and buying new licenses has become a pain. It takes forever to get a quote.  

On a daily basis in our company right now there are around 300 people using the product. The system is monitored by the system admin and myself. We have a cooperative situation.  

The Symantec customer support team is responsive by email. I would say it is between 80% to 90% effective.  

I have not used other antivirus products as an admin. The Symantec product was already in use at the company when I came here.  

I would say that the initial installation is moderately straightforward. It is not really completely straightforward and it is not really complex. It is somewhere in the middle.  

The deployment of the server takes more time, but I am not the one who deployed it. I do not know exactly how long it took. I am not aware of any surprises or difficulties with the deployment.  

The system admin did the installation without external assistance.  

I was not the one who implemented Symantec at our company. The decision was made before I arrived and I inherited the product.  

I am now researching products in consideration of deploying a replacement option for Symantec because it is not totally meeting our security needs.  

The honest advice I would have for someone considering this solution at this point in time is to move on. I say this because Symantec is being bought out by Broadcom. That may not be a bad thing on its own. Symantec has traditionally been a very good company and still was up to this point. But being bought by another company just means that there will be a mess because of the transition and integration between these companies and products. Developers of the product will be spending time focusing on that merger rather than core product issues. It creates a little bit of a mess that the client should not have to suffer through when there are other capable solutions.  

Another thing is that Symantec still needs to implement some features that it does not have. They have very good, strong protection, but they are behind other products on the market. There are a lot of more features they have failed to implement. Especially now when everyone is working remotely and with cloud products, the security does not seem complete.  

Maybe the cloud version addresses these issues. I have not used the cloud version because I am on the enterprise version and like in-house deployment. Our version is missing a ton of features that are very important to security especially in the current environment.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Symantec End-User Endpoint Security as a seven-out-of-ten. It is missing too much to be rated higher.  

We basically use the solution for endpoint protection.

The single-pane management is the solution's most valuable feature. It makes administrative control very easy.

I'm not sure if the solution can improve that much more. Right now, for me, I'm asking the question "How does Defender stack up against the product we're paying for?" 

Defender comes with Windows 10 and we have Windows 10 throughout our environment. With that being free, we're asking ourselves why we would pay for another solution that's sort of redundant.

I know they were just bought out by Broadcom and there have been some difficulties with Broadcom as far as getting license renewals, etc. Mostly, due to the fact that it's confusing, even for the vendor, people are turned off by it. The vendors are telling us that it can take weeks for them to get a renewal quote, nevermind the actual renewal.

I've actually had to call Symantec myself because my vendor said "Well, we're going to try it, but it's going to take weeks to get an answer from them." In the end, it was internally expedited and I got the answer the next day, however, that's an exception, not the rule.

I know a number of people that have left just because of the fact that when Broadcom first bought them, and their licensing ran out, the company provided a temporary license and then another instead of dealing with a proper license. One had to argue for another renewal or for them to promise to give them the proper license in the third month. He finally got it, however, it took three months of begging. That doesn't seem right.

I've been using the solution for about ten years at this point. It's been at least a decade.

From a usage point, it's very stable. With the new company Broadcom, that's taken them over, I know they've had some shakeups. My concern is whether or not Broadcom continues to support it going forward. If they do I'm fine with it. If they don't or they start having failures in their support, then I'm going to have to leave them.

I don't know enough about the scalability to really have an opinion on it, one way or the other. I wouldn't be able to comment on it.

Currently, we have anywhere between 100 and 500 users on the solution.

I've used technical support in the past. They've always been okay. We've had very few incidents where we've had to have to call them and ask for assistance. Out of those incidents, in my recollection, the last one was probably a couple of years ago, but those incidents were quickly resolved. 

I would say, overall, we've been satisfied with their level of service in the past.

The initial setup wasn't complex at all. It was very straightforward. However, in our case, the initial set up was 10 years ago. Its been a very, very long time. I can't speak to what it is like right now. It may be different, or just as easy.

We're a not-for-profit. We do get exceptionally good pricing, however, I cannot say exactly what the costs are for us on a monthly or yearly basis.

We're just a Symantec customer. We aren't a partner or reseller.

We're currently using the latest version of the solution.

Overall, we're pretty happy with the product.

I would tell other organizations considering implementing it that it's a great tool. My concern again would be if Broadcom doesn't really invest in the product's success. Often companies will buy out their competitors and/or they'll buy out a product line thinking that they want to get into that field. Then they turn around and they dump the product line after a year or two and decide, "Well, I guess we don't want to go this way," or they are just buying it out to get rid of the competition.

My concern lies in the new company failing to come through on updates or the delivery of the service. It remains to be seen whether they're going to fail, or whether they're going to continue to support the product and keep it as a high-end solution.

So far I've been very happy with them. I would rate them overall as fairly high, maybe a nine out of ten. The only thing that worries me as a user is whether or not Broadcom is going to continue to support them going forward.