Symantec Endpoint Security

The versions of McAfee that we've tried don't really cover our small business needs like Symantec Endpoint Security does.

Symantec Endpoint Security seems to be a more mature solution compared with CrowdStrike, particularly when CS was just recently getting their USB blocking functionality rolled out for macOS endpoints this year. Another differentiator with CrowdStrike is that Symantec ES still provides both on-demand scanning & real-time signature-based detection in addition to solely real-time machine learning detection whereas on-demand scanning and signatures are not available on CrowdStrike. This means there is a doubt as to whether we can use CS to comply with some of our PCI DSS obligations which specifically require the use of signature-based antivirus solutions.

Symantec Endpoint Security is an enterprise grade security solution that easily scales to enterprise networks requirements. It provides a model for efficiently managing a large number of endpoints in a distributed network environment. the SEP Server dashboard provides very informative up to date reports and indicators to the ICT management without having to check every client. The wealth of information combined with advanced threat management, automated response and threat analysis is invaluable when small teams need to manage a large environment

Symantec Endpoint Security offers very similar features to the above products, they all do the same thing in terms of protecting your endpoints against cybersecurity threats. Installation wise the products all install from a central management system and report back to this for central reporting. Ultimately we choose Symantec as the reseller was able to offer additional incentives which made their pricing very competitive.

Symantec Endpoint Security stacks up very well against the competition. One thing that is very different about Symantec compared to the competitors is that Symantec will not steal all your PC resources and will run fine with most applications. Some other AV products are overly sensitive and will destroy PC resources, but Symantec does a very good job and will not do this to your machine.

We've completed a POV on Crowdstrike Falcom Endpoint Protect and are very excited to move over to that platform and away from the Symantec protect suite. Crowdstrike has behavior based analysis and scanning, vulnerability detection, and best of bread support and managed services with Falcon Complete. Crowdstrike is leap and bounds so much better than Symantec.

1) Stability
2) Easy to manage and cost.
3) More protection and immediate fixing compare to other similar products.

In comparison with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Symantec Endpoint Security has, in my opinion, more scalable file inspection/spyware/antivirus settings. Plus it is more stable in a multi-OS user environment. But it also has numerous issues with itself and related Symantec products (especially after it was taken over by Broadcom). Microsoft product is easy to manage, it is built-in and has better support.

Symantec Endpoint Security has always been a leader in malware detection and in the endpoint protection arena and they show this with a solution that is fully mature and delivers what is promised. Competitors may offer new endpoint protection strategies, however, new functionalities on SEP aim to protect against new and advanced attacks. Broadcom still has a lot to do if wants to keep up with the competition, on an arena where all the players are constantly evolving, even a short pause can put you at a disadvantage.

Haven't had to use or consider another product. SES Does it all and more

Cylance: (Active Engage) (Cost 4x Symantec [Endpoint Security]) Cylance is a good product but we have it through an MSSP and only have read-only. The certification and training for the entry [are] like 3 hours of videos but a smart person can just go in and look as the system is very intuitive. Most of them are pretty easy to pick up, don't believe people who tell you it's impossible to give you access if you are not trained, read-only is harmless, except to the mssp. Crowdstrike: (Evaluated)(Cost 6x Symantec [Endpoint Security]) Seems like a good product, we may be engaging with them in the future, it has a lot of the same features as Symantec [Endpoint Security] but there are more people behind the events that take place after detection on your system. Cynet: (Evaluated)(Cost 2x Symantec [Endpoint Security]) Another good product, seems to have a lot going for it. May engage in the future, it seems they have more AI put into the actions that happen after a detection which is pretty cool. Arctic Wolf: (Evaluated)(Cost 15x Symantec [Endpoint Security]) Good product, part of a wholistic package provided by artic wolf, not really apples to apples though.

We have evaluated McAfee, it degrades the performance of computers and also the feature set were not properly working, it also lacked the key features that we require, the cost is also higher, on other hand we also evaluated Microsoft System Center Endpoint Protection it has no data loss prevention feature, the reports and events, alerts were not as per our needs, So, we opted for Symantec, and so far it is performing as per our needs

Symantec performance is good and it offers better features and has good track record, the ease of use and familiarity gives it [an advantage] on any competition.

Simply superior in every way in my opinion. These others were not in the market when we started with SEP.

Symantec Endpoint Production is hands down my least favorite endpoint projection software on the market today. It's a difficult endpoint to deploy, manage and remove. It's a heavy client so once you get it installed it consumes a large amount of resources on the endpoint. The management GUI is out dated and difficult to use. On top of all that their support is difficult to work with.

I have used competing software from different vendors such as McAfee, Eset, and Trend Micro. I found that Symantec Endpoint Security distributes its updates flawlessly and sends a very clear and comprehensive daily report. I also find the customer service very helpful once it gets rolling, though it is a bit of a pain to open a case in the first place.

I was informed by our internal IT that this had been a candidate during the selection process, but the pricing and the performance, based on their test, leaned towards Symantec Endpoint Security.

Symantec Endpoint Protection really shines against its competitors when it comes to centralized management. It falls a little short when it comes to cloud deployments.

More robust options and protections than Malware Bytes. Better overall detection and alerting to security issues. The overall ROI was better for us and we felt would also give us a stronger line of defense in our overall security strategy. We chose Symantec Endpoint because it gave us a top notch product in a price point we wanted.

Symantec Endpoint Protection outperformed all other competitor front-line antivirus products with more accurate signature detections and less false positives. We ultimately chose to pair SEP with Malwarebytes Anti-Malware to provide a more comprehensive security solution that could detect and prevent infection from both traditional viruses as well as non-traditional infections and malware.

We currently use McAfee Endpoint Security on another part of our network as the main application we use only supports McAfee. We have no choice in using it or we won't have vendor support. I would use SEP if we could. One less server to manage and maintain. Reduce ROI on licensing if we only had to purchase support one SEP only.

I have used Symantec Endpoint Protection for many years successfully. I truthfully have not compared it to any of the other major alternatives out there, as Symantec Endpoint Protection has continued to get the job done.

Eset is better for on-premises integration. You install the administration console on a local machine, unlike Symantec Endpoint Protection, which is entirely cloud-based, and you can scan your network and perform silent installs. They seem to have a reasonable level when it comes to protection, so it depends on what you're looking for.

The functionality is about the same.