Symantec Endpoint Security Reviews

Our primary use case for Symantec Endpoint Security is threat intelligence and endpoint protection. Their threat protection is very good. We are managing a good number of users thanks to the solution and we are pretty satisfied with it.

What I've found the most valuable is that it's stable and easy to use. Device control and management is especially easy.

Some vendors are starting to give Symantec Endpoint Security a run for their money. Even Symantec's basic DLP features are getting to a point where they're good enough for some organizations' endpoint security needs. The company should be anticipating this. It might be a good idea to introduce some additional features to Symantec Endpoint Security.

I have been using this solution for five to six years.

Symantec Endpoint Security is stable and easy to use.

I have not had much experience with their tech support. 

Installation is was straightforward for us. There was not very much to it.

We did get some vendor support but six or seven of our engineers were involved in the process.

Symantec Endpoint Security does have some aggressive competitors and they're offering very competitive pricing. Maybe Symantec Endpoint Security could amend their pricing structure, but they always offer a good product.

We evaluated one other antivirus, but I forgot its name. Symantec Endpoint Security was way better compared to that product.

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.

SEPM is a product for anti-virus security. It provides endpoint security for all client machines. It protects the client machines from malware or ransom attacks.

• Support
• Scalability
• Flexibility

It keeps our machines up-to-date with the definitions of the current zero day attacks, which happens in real-time scenarios. It protects our data and the clients' data, which can be secured by using this product.

I am happy to say that the Symantec comes into the picture where the issues are reported from the product, it might be a product bug or it might be a product defect. The product engineer works on this and the latest upgrade has it built into the peer cost, where we can upgrade our involvement and support our clients again.

So, we were having a problem in Version 14, where the client machines used to go into the health state and once it restarted, and never came back again. But as far as one of the defaults, this was reported and not an issue in new versions of Symantec 14 and SEMP 2. Apparently, this is works well for now, and we are happy with this.

It is a stable product.

The scalability of the product is good to where it has had the effect of increasing the workload by adding more machines, so I should have a good scaled back-up for this supporting both lines.

I would rate them a 10 out of 10. They supply good support and have a good knowledge. 

We did have a previous solution. They are all equal in giving the definitions on a timely routine, but the bandwidth extent was an issue for me. This is why we changed to Symantec.

Everything was straightforward. Nothing was complex. The installation was very user-friendly, where the engineer from Symantec had helped us to migrate this product from the older version to the newer version of Symantec.

What we have paid for this product is good value for the work and the services that they are providing to us.

We were going through the multiple products out on the market and we chose Symantec, because we had proposed multiple products to the client and the client had chosen Symantec for these two perspectives: One is for the best service and support, which Symantec provides, and the other is the pricing, which was a constraint for our client.

If you have a good involvement and maybe your clients are not connected to a domain, you can use this product. This is one advantage of this product, where you can use the product for protecting your machines. 

You need to keep track of the definitions and releases on a daily basis. This is one of the disadvantages.

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 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.

The primary key is because it doesn't impact much in the performance of the endpoint.

For me, the end point is almost a commodity. So, an advantage with Symantec is the integration. The integration with our two directories for taking control to administrate people, and then follow up with the segmentation to different people. To be able to manage a subset of the endpoint registering the solution, the distribution is in geographical sounds. The dashboard can be emailed, and I can receive the solution.

I find the most valuable features are the security features that have been developed in the past few years. 

A good improvement would be altering the console in the console manager. Sometimes we need to add and improve the security to access to the console because the indicators and we can take management activities into the console, and it's, nice to have to improve the security access to the console.

It is very stable. I do not have any problems with it at all. 

I only use the technical support once or twice a year. I find that sometimes they are a bit slow to find a solution. 

The most imprortant criteria for me to find a proper solution in this sphere are:

• Knowledge of the market
• Study of the solution

I also looked at McAffe, but I noticed that Symantec was the better performing solution when I researched respected user performance.