We performed a comparison between ESET Cloud Apps Protection and Symantec Messaging Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Email Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is protection against malicious links, fishing, and impersonation. You can train people to be aware of these threats, but they're not always careful. When they're using their phones between meetings, they click on a link, and it's game over."
"The two main features that prove most beneficial for us are URL scanning and attachment scanning."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is the ease of use."
"The initial setup is straightforward. You just add the license, click it, and then you can set up the rules. It is quite simple."
"Defender for 365 is a comprehensive cloud-based solution. The value of the cloud is that you aren't alone. Threat intelligence and analytics are shared in the cloud. We don't have to find the solution alone. If you face an unknown threat with traditional solutions like Trend Micro and Symantec, you need to open a case and send your information to them to analyze forensically and identify the source of the attack."
"Safe attachments, safe links, policies, and the ability to protect from zero-day threats are the most valuable features."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is a stable solution."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 has improved my organization's security. It makes it easier to manage the infrastructure without the help of third-party applications."
"We are close to having 99% or 98% detection."
"The most valuable features are the precision of detection and the level of customization of the policy."
"The solution is excellent at blocking spam."
"It is a solid and stable product."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"What I like most about Symantec Messaging Gateway is its usability. I also find its interface very friendly. The solution has a very good interface."
"The feature that I like the best is the fingerprinting concept."
"The anti-malware and spam features are valuable."
"The solution is highly customizable. You can make rules for domains and configure policies for spam or malware. Messaging Gateway is an on-prem solution, so it's useful for companies without a cloud presence."
"The solution is stable and the performance is good."
"The visibility for the weaknesses in the system and unauthorized access can be improved."
"The phishing and spam filters could use some improvement."
"Microsoft Defender for Office 365 should be more proactive."
"Too many false positives and lacks an accurate capability to detect malicious SharePoint sites."
"Several simulation options are available within 365, and the phishing simulation could be better."
"Microsoft should provide more documentation for users so they can self-educate. I would like to see more documentation for advanced security features."
"You should be able to deploy Defender for every subscription without the need to add servers."
"In some situations, it has not been able to pick impersonated emails having no attachments. Technical support definitely has a scope for improvement."
"The specific domain file for Apache needs to be well-defined."
"It's not easy for an admin to check and decide if the email is good or not."
"What needs to be improved in Symantec Messaging Gateway is its local partner support, as it's not as technical. The support my company gets from the partner isn't good. Vendor support is good, but local partner support isn't. I'm happy with Symantec Messaging Gateway as a solution, but the problem is with its partner support. To me, Symantec Messaging Gateway is a complete solution, but it can be very difficult to search the web for resolutions to issues or problems you experience from it. If this could be improved or resolved in the next release of Symantec Messaging Gateway, then that would be good."
"The biggest problem is it's an on-prem product and we're trying to get out of having equipment in data centers."
"The product must improve the user dashboards."
"The documentation could have more detailed examples of how to use the product in various situations. As more companies shift to the cloud, they could better integrate the on-prem and cloud versions through an on-prem client."
"The false positive submissions must be improved."
"This product would benefit from better integration with Symantec Endpoint Protection."
"We've had issues in the past where the user finds spam, and Symantec does not recognize it as spam."
"Symantec Messaging Gateway can improve detection because most of them are false negatives or false positives that we are trying to troubleshoot. Additionally, we are having routing problems and they are somehow connected to DNS issues."
More Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Pricing and Cost Advice →
ESET Cloud Apps Protection is ranked 22nd in Email Security with 2 reviews while Symantec Messaging Gateway is ranked 6th in Secure Email Gateway (SEG) with 20 reviews. ESET Cloud Apps Protection is rated 9.6, while Symantec Messaging Gateway is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ESET Cloud Apps Protection writes "Great protection, good privacy, and helpful support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Messaging Gateway writes "A stable and reasonably priced solution that performs well and has a very good malware database". ESET Cloud Apps Protection is most compared with Fortinet FortiMail, Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP) and Perception Point Advanced Email Security, whereas Symantec Messaging Gateway is most compared with Cisco Secure Email, Microsoft Exchange Online Protection (EOP), Fortinet FortiMail, Trend Micro Email Security and Barracuda Email Security Gateway. See our ESET Cloud Apps Protection vs. Symantec Messaging Gateway report.
We monitor all Email Security 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.