We performed a comparison between CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and Symantec Endpoint Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We were able to reduce the number of privileged accounts by 50%, which helped to simplify our privileged access management environment."
"The feature called PTA, which stands for Privileged Threat Analytics keeps track of what admins are doing and works with Centimeters. If something fishy is going on with a user's credentials, it alerts the security team so they can act fast. Plus, it automates stuff like resetting credentials or blocking users. So, if there's a potential hack, CyberArk can change passwords and lock out users in a snap. It also gives you a heads-up if anything unusual is going on with server activities, like someone creating new users with uncontrolled credentials."
"What sets CyberArk apart is its continuous innovation, staying ahead of the competition."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance."
"The solution allows me to give access and privileges to each user individually"
"The most valuable feature is that their database is completely encrypted and protected with multiple layers."
"The product is stable."
"The department management aspect of the solution is the most valuable aspect."
"The firewall, IPS and device control are useful at protecting the environment."
"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."
"Great security and very user friendly."
"Managing SEP is very easy, and also troubleshooting part is easily managed."
"No maintenance is required after a successful installation phase."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Symantec's detection capabilities are strong. It involves run protection and behavioral analysis."
"The installation was very easy."
"It's an old product and has many areas that can be improved."
"The installation process is pretty difficult."
"They need much better integration with Azure AD."
"The solution can be complex to use at times."
"It cannot be on-prem. It is only cloud-based. Sometimes, that's a restriction in terms of usage."
"The tool should be more user-friendly."
"It is hard to deal with technical support if you are not certified."
"The product's threat protection and defense capabilities need enhancement."
"Nowadays, threats are changing, and they are moving more towards script control and zero-day attacks. So, we would like to have more control similar to an EDR solution. Symantec Endpoint Protection has certainly come a long way as a traditional antivirus, but because the threats are changing, we would like to have more EDR features so that we have a detailed view of the source from where the infection entered the environment and whether it has tried to connect any other endpoint. It should provide such a detailed view for investigation. It should protect against zero-day threats, etc. These are the key enhancements that can make it a complete solution for any enterprise. Currently, we have seen organizations going for two solutions: antivirus and EDR. With both these capabilities, it would be a complete package."
"This latest version has proven unreliable for management and installation."
"The solution could improve by having a better graphical interface."
"The stability was not the best. There were times when antivirus updates broke it. It wasn't necessarily self-updating - at least, not in terms of the virus signatures. It updated in terms of the executable files. Therefore, when Windows updates would come out, they often couldn't be installed, or the computer would hang due to the fact that the updates weren't compatible with the antivirus."
"They lack the visibility you get in a heuristical, artificial, AI type of product, like a next-gen antivirus."
"The management of the server is a bit complex."
"It needs to die. In my opinion, Symantec was a really great security company, 10, 15 years ago. They went out, they bought all the great tools and then they never did anything with them. So they've just fallen behind and there's nothing that's going to work now to bring them back up the date that's going to regain user confidence."
"The overall quality of the product needs to be improved because with the last session we had several issues with new versions. Also, the solution needs better protections."
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 6th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 27 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Security is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 140 reviews. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.0, while Symantec Endpoint Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager writes "Offers integrated solutions and expands its capabilities through strategic acquisitions". 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". CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, CrowdStrike Falcon and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, 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 CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Symantec Endpoint Security report.
We monitor all Privileged Access Management (PAM) 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.
