We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Symantec Endpoint Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The performance is good and it is faster than IBM QRadar."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability. We are in Indonesia, more engineers understand Elastic Security here. So it is easier to scale and also develop. In features, the discovery to query all the logs is very important to us. It is very easy, especially with the query function and the feature to generate alerts and create tools. Sometimes we use the alert security dashboard to monitor our clients."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the prevention methods and the incident alerts."
"It is very quick to react. I can set it to check anomalies or suspicious behavior every 30 seconds. It is very fast."
"The intelligence of the system has been very impressive. It's not quite AI, but the technical bit where it correlates information, based on the seen attacks within an organization is good."
"Elastic has a lot of beats, such as Winlogbeat and Filebeat. Beats are the agents that have to be installed on the terminals to send the data. When we install beats or Elastic agents on every terminal, they don't overload the terminals. In other SIEM solutions such as Splunk or QRadar, when beats or agents are installed on endpoints, they are very heavy for the terminals. They consume a lot of power of the terminals, whereas Elastic agents hardly consume any power and don't overload the terminals."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it is more flexible than AlienVault."
"The most valuable feature of Elastic Security is that you can install agents, and they are not separately licensed."
"With a single console, you get control over Mac, Windows, iOS, and Android. This control is most valuable."
"The solution offers very good security features and is comparable to Sophos."
"Symantec's detection capabilities are strong. It involves run protection and behavioral analysis."
"It is a solid antivirus security product."
"I think the key thing for me, is interoperability, in that you can deploy it to Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's been a really important feature in the last two years. Now there's one management console to cover all three OSs."
"Its response time is the most valuable. It is very quick."
"The solution, especially in older versions, is quite stable."
"The solution is easy to manage."
"The training that is offered for Elastic is in need of improvement because there is no depth to it."
"They don't provide user authentication and authorisation features (Shield) as a part of their open-source version."
"Elastic has one problem. In the past, Elastic Security was free. Now, they currently only offer the basic license or a certain period of time."
"Elastic Security can be a bit difficult to use if a person only has experience in SMBs with tools like Zoho. The product can also be difficult for those who have never dealt with query language."
"The process of designing dashboards is a little cumbersome in Kibana. Unless you are an expert, you will not be able to use it. The process should be pretty straightforward. The authentication feature is what we are looking for. We would love to have a central authentication system in the open-source edition without the need for a license or an enterprise license. If they can give at least a simple authentication system within a company. In a large organization, authentication is very essential for security because logs can contain a lot of confidential data. Therefore, an authentication feature for who accesses it should be there."
"The problem with ELK is it's difficult to administer. When you have a problem, it can be very, very difficult to rebuild indexes."
"Its documentation should be a bit better. I have to spend at least a couple of hours to find the solution for a simple thing. When we buy Elastic, training is not included for free with Elastic. We have to pay extra for the training. They should include training in the price."
"The setup process is complex. You need a solid working knowledge of networking, operating systems, and a little programming."
"After selling this product, what we have observed is that the system gets slower, which is a major issue."
"The management of the server is a bit complex."
"The technical support could improve because when you reach level one support there is a lot of delays."
"There is no local support for Symantec products in Hong Kong."
"Symantec has not properly promoted Symantec Endpoint Security in the market. In my opinion, the product should be properly promoted."
"The solution could improve by having a better graphical interface."
"The solution could be more secure and scalable."
"Using the management console is a bit complex. There are many features that we cannot use and we could use some help. We need some assistance to make them work better. They need to add features to make it simpler."
Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Log Management with 59 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Security is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 140 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Symantec Endpoint Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Security writes "The solution has given us visibility into compliance within our whole system and helped us ensure everything is updated". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Symantec Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. See our Elastic Security vs. Symantec Endpoint Security report.
We monitor all Log Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
