Likelihood to Recommend In large deployments, I have found Microsoft Forefront to be very effective at combating the majority of threats faced by our users. It provides the base platform for catching threats that would otherwise threaten our users and their data. If you have an environment that is under constant malware threat, then a secondary program may be needed as required.
Read full review NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec)
For a small or mid-sized firm with distributed computing requirements like ours, Symantec Norton is well suited. It is an ideal solution as it is easy-to-use and the pricing is the right fit on account of geographical customisation. Small businesses, especially, realise the value of endpoint protection only when they encounter serious issues, therefore their product becomes well suited for those who may dither because of the lack of clarity and poor pricing structure of other options. However, the most important feature still remains its effectiveness, which makes it the most optimal option at the right price
Read full review Pros SCEP is a light weight client which is minimally impactful on the user end. Forefront's management console provides excellent monitoring and reporting. Setup and configuration is very easy. Read full review NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec)
In term of pricing In term of Advanced threat protection User friendly solution and good support team. Read full review Cons Malware detection is not quite 100%. We have to use a secondary program occasionally. On low ram and weak CPU systems scanning can freeze the machine. The same reporting tools that are on the console version, aren't on the client. Read full review NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec)
Confusing Workflow at Renewal Fixed Bundle Sizes may be an issue for Smaller Businesses with in-the-middle requirements Easier Installation Read full review Alternatives Considered The biggest advantage that MSF and SCEP provide over Norton is: One: Far less client overhead required. Both Norton and
McAfee are highly intensive client side when in use. Two: We've had far better luck using the Microsoft system with its detection capabilities, versus the others. Three: It is tied right into the Microsoft updating system, which provides central updating capabilities of av/mal/windows updates.
Read full review NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec)
Read full review Return on Investment Less turnaround on virus based issues. Helps reduce malware issues over time. Can breed overconfidence in the system, so people don't always try a second tool. Read full review NortonLifeLock (formerly Symantec)
Data Protection is ensured which ensures positive focus from all team members on their work which certain results in improved productivity at the individual level of 2-4% that consequently improves organisational productivity. Our cost of external inputs for data security issues is NIL therefore obviously reducing the bottomline by 1-2% which would be the average cost incurred by organisations of our size in general. Of course an event maybe costlier, but I am sticking to averages since we have had no events. Overall, we feel that the cost of security software is also lower on account of optimised pricing by Symantec. While the expense in this segment is a fraction of total IT costs, and therefore tangible savings are also fractional. However, So, since the value of outcomes (lack of security related negative events) is much higher, intangible benefits are even higher. Read full review ScreenShots