Sentinel One is streamlined, with a minimal resource footprint, and it appears to work well, offering slightly more comprehensive protection than Malwarebytes.
Mcafee usually takes a long time to scan each system as we usually have scheduled systems scan every weekend. But if we want to scan a particular system in minimal time we usually go with Malwarebytes to get the job done.
We have used Malwarebytes for many years. Originally, we used the free version but converted to the paid version. Now, we have five licenses, one for each of the staff members who are working remotely.
Proven to be one of the best in detecting malware that is otherwise undetected by other solutions. When a user gets hit by certain malware, many other tools do not even detect them as malware, while with Malwarebytes, you can rest assured that if it states that a computer is …
Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection is better than Webroot's Business Endpoint Protection in quite a few ways from the admin console to how effective the software works. Malwarebytes has a better admin GUI console in every way. Malwarebytes has detected malware that Webroot has not.
I found Sophos to be more resource intensive, scans take longer and affect the end user experience more. Building policies and customizations is not as intuitive with Sophos.
Malwarebytes beat the pricing we received from competing products like ESET and Bitdefender. Also, from looking at multiple reviews and ratings, Malwarebytes simply does a better job of protecting systems. It is easy to manage and maintain (sometimes information can be too …
I haven't used Norton, MacKeeper, nor any other anti-viral software for many years. I believe Malwarebytes is the most effective malware software available in its price range and have been extremely satisfied with it. Since using it I have had no issues nor incidents with …
Malwarebytes seems to lead the industry in customer focus. Their support team is superior. The breadth of services they offer is a major factor along with their roadmap for the future. I believe the update process is one of the easiest I've experienced with major software …
Malwarebytes is much better at detecting and mitigating non-traditional or virus-like attack vectors than any of the frontline anti-virus programs that we evaluated. As such, we chose to use Malwarebytes in tandem with a frontline anti-virus solution, providing us with two …
It's difficult to make a fair comparison because I use Bitdefender on a Mac rather than a PC. Bitdefender finds many suspicious emails that it can't remove or quarantine, so I have to remove them manually. Malwarebytes doesn't do that.
To be blunt, MB leaves them in the dust from an operative and functional perspective. We use them because we get great support for all functions and find they do an excellent job at what they are designed to do. Competitive costs and no extraneous fees. Software that tries to …
Ultimately, we chose to go with Malwarebytes in addition to other solutions because we felt it filled a small but critical void in our overall protection on our network and client systems. I can't say I would use the product on its own as it was built for a very specific role …
We've looked at other products but the ease of use, reviews and tests, and at this point, our own experience has led to us remaining with Malwarebytes instead of others. Cost is also a factor, Malwarebytes is reasonable comparatively when you look at what you get vs. what …
Simply put, Malwarebytes has been around for a long time and has yet to fail me. The consistency in which it operates on our devices and updates on its own without breaking itself means that I do not have to second guess if we are going to be protected properly or not. It …
It is also a very good option to consider as an antivirus system. But, it is not effective against the rootkits; that's why I selected Malwarebytes over it. Malware bytes has a more powerful and effective scanning mechanism than Norton. If I compare the free versions of the …
It's been a while since I made my decision to purchase Malwarebytes over the other products listed. I believe at the time Malwarebytes was the best product on my short list. I tried both AVG and Avast before deciding on Malwarebytes. Malwarebytes was also recommended to me by …
For me, there are no other alternatives compared to the free version of Malwarebytes. I used McAfee Total Protection as an alternative, it's a full product with anti-malware, anti-virus, anti-spam.
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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. …
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 …
Systems Administrator, Core Infrastructure & Microsoft Systems
Chose 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 …
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 …
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 …
We did use a mix of Symantec and ClamWin AV and after that a mix of Symantec and AVG for our store locations. We also tested Comodo and McAfee at one point. McAfee was too expensive for our budget and Comodo I believe just didn't deploy to our store locations easily. We did …
Our company has used both the Norton and Symantec systems for years. Therefore, I have never used any other system. We are so pleased with Symantec and have never seen a need to use any other programs.
The company decided to opt for Symantec Endpoint Protection because of efficiency and what it promises to do. Besides being an investment which has been used for more than 10 years. For any and all problems, the software presents a solution at the time, in addition to sending …
Symantec Endpoint Protection stacks up well against its competitors. It's priced very competitively. It's easy to install. Most important of all it catches viruses and prevents them from attacking one's computer.
Now, I gave it that rating because it's a handy tool for diagnosing issues. Quarantining them, and most of the time, it does fix the problem. Though with rootkits, it's been hit or miss, and sometimes perfectly valid software gets flagged erroneously. However, once you've run it, it tends to run continuously, consuming far too many resources and being a real pain to uninstall, sometimes even causing issues.
We have found that Symantec Endpoint Security is better suited to newer systems running faster processors and more than 8GB RAM otherwise the client agent takes up too many resources and slows the system down. However, if you have a reasonably modern fleet of systems it does everything you would expect from an Endpoint Protection solution and works well as part of a multi-layered cybersecurity policy.
The software is very good at working in the background without interfering with the end user in any way, there has never been a complaint of slowness on the machines or any excessive scan times because the users are unaware of it.
Malwarebytes management console is a very nice interface that tracks all of the machines on the network and shows which one is online, offline, up to date, out of date etc. I can also push installation packages to new machines without end user interaction.
Malwarebytes does extremely well what it is made to do, and that is to stop malware. Never once has any infection made it past malwarebytes to harm an end user machine.
Malwarebytes is always up to date, definitions are downloaded on a daily basis, you can trust that your software is current and you are being protected from the latest threats out there.
As of 2021 Q1, I have had issues with upgrading Malwarebytes installs on endpoints from the admin console. On about 30%-50% of the endpoints, I have to manually uninstall them, reboot, and reinstall Malwarebytes. This is a relatively new feature over the last year that Malwarebytes has done that let's you control updating the endpoint agent.
Removing dead clients from the console. This is nearly impossible to do, and makes keeping the console clean a very difficult task.
Poorly tested versions are sometimes released that cause serious issues for users. This ranges from browsers malfunctioning to BSOD errors.
Malware detection is good but not great. We are not confident in SEP by itself to neutralize malware threats. It's detection rate just isn't high enough for next generation and zero day threats.
The last time we renewed Malwarebytes, we renewed for a 3 year renewal. That should describe the confidence we have in the product. Plus the cost savings impact year after year.
Continued satisfied support. The saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..." comes to mind. It works, and we'll continue to use it and support Symantec.
Usability-wise, it's pretty good, and it gets the job done. But once that's finished, the nags, the pop-ups, and the fact that it slows older systems down recklessly really cost it rating points. It becomes a clutter, and one of the first things we check when we receive reports that a PC is slow is whether it's running malware. Once we uninstall it, the PC is usually easily 40-50% faster. That's too much in the way of resources for something that wants to always run in the background.
The rating reflects Symantec Endpoint Security's ability to balance enterprise grade security with user-friendly workflows or advanced configurations require extra effort. For most organizations, the streamlined management and robust automation justify the high score. Management GUI is old fashined and need to be improve. Older devices may experience slowdowns during full scans without careful configuration.
We've used it for years and the software is easy to use. The dashboard is easy to read, and you can easily figure out where to go to troubleshoot or deploy software. Symantec is there for emergencies like backup restoration or file retrieval. It's pretty low maintenance. Symantec is there when your IT infrastructure needs it
I honestly haven't needed support for Malwarebytes because I haven't had any problems with it, whatsoever. I am giving it a 9 rating because I haven't actually had an encounter or experience with customer service or support, so it's hard to rate the actual support team since I've never had the privilege of coming into contact with them.
Support is completely awful! You can never get anyone to help if you can even find a number to call. The support web portal is a joke and their response time if you're even able to submit a ticket is ridiculously slow.
Malwarebytes seems to lead the industry in customer focus. Their support team is superior. The breadth of services they offer is a major factor along with their roadmap for the future. I believe the update process is one of the easiest I've experienced with major software platforms. You may be able to receive a discount if you purchase through a reseller / IT vendor.
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.