Symantec Endpoint Protection is the company's flagship antivirus / endpoint security product.
$29.99
1 year 100-249 devices
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS) solutions apply proactive threat intelligence and defenses across the entire attack lifecycle to keep organizations safer and more resilient.
N/A
Pricing
Symantec Endpoint Security
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Editions & Modules
Endpoint Security, Initial Hybrid Subscription License With Support
$29.99
1 year 100-249 devices
Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise, Initial Hybrid Subscription License with Support
$34.99
1 year 1-99 devices
Endpoint Security, Initial Hybrid Subscription License With Support
$90.99
3 years 100-249 devices
Symantec Endpoint Security Enterprise, Initial Hybrid Subscription License with Support
$99.99
3 years 1-99 devices
Symantec Endpoint Security Complete, Initial Hybrid Subscription License with Support
$200
3 years 1-99 devices
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Symantec Endpoint Security
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Symantec Endpoint Security
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS
Considered Both Products
Symantec Endpoint Security
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Symantec Endpoint Security
I have worked on many antivirus tools, but according to my opinion, this is a stable and reliable product.
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.
At the time we took the decision all other products seemed to be complicated in usage and licensing. Trellix was very simple in all the aspects: licensing, usage, support. It also was very simple to deploy, setup and manage. Product interface was simple to understand and even …
All in one protection for endpoint devices, the data loss prevention, and adaptive threat protection is the best advantage against other competitors. The cost for the platform and service is very effective and efficient. The usage and capability of this software is very edge …
Unlike Trellix Endpoint Security Symantec Endpoint provides less information about events on the user side. Trellix give an opportunity to see information about virus detection on a user machine as quick as it possible, so we were able to catch the signs of virus propagation …
It has fewer false positive issues. It also provides more compatibility with a variety of different OS versions. The sensor installation is easy to use, update and maintain as well as the reporting capabilities that it can offer are more robust than the ones that other …
Compared to its competitors like Cisco, McAfee is cheaper. At the competitive pricing levels, McAfee Endpoint Security does a good job. Although it stacks up finely against decent priced solutions but it doesn't provide superior service if the price limit is scaled down or up. …
Compared to Endgame and AMP, McAfee Endpoint Security doesn't hold a candle to them when it comes to detecting/advanced identifying malware or zero days. Since Mcafee Endpoint Security is signature-based, it is way behind the curve with newer anti-malware tools that can focus …
We were using Microsoft Defender in the beginning as it was free and quite good. But as we got acquired by a large MNC, we were asked to switch to McAfee as we had to follow the company guidelines which takes data security very seriously and personally. I think the switch did …
The solution is already in place when I join the organization. I do not have any information on what other antivirus software they evaluated before decided to purchase McAfee Endpoint Security.
McAfee is a strong, if not strongest A/V solution in the endpoint security space. It's wide adoption and strong support and positive reviews from companies like Gartner and Forrester back it up.
If you have Cisco tools and equipment globally in place and just for the clients additionally McAfee you should have a deeper look. We wanted to install end-2-end security over all networks and hardware. This was a big point for Cisco. For a managed client team, Cisco is a step …
McAfee Endpoint Security has a better GUI, better pricing, stronger features, and agent deployment is much faster. Their firewall is extremely good, and for those reasons I would firmly recommend it over other solutions (Kaspersky, Symantec etc). Like I mentioned earlier, do …
McAfee Endpoint Security provides a single platform for Firewall, AV and web control. With the new console and integration between the components, threat detection is superior.
McAfee is a cheaper price point, however Kaspersky out performs McAfee in every category. We went with McAfee, because many of the team members in IT were familar with it, less training (short term), and lower cost (short term)
Advanced Threat Protection, or ATP in Office 365 was awful. Some attachments wouldn't be delivered at all while others took minutes and sometimes hours to be delivered after being scanned. It was causing us to lose business. FireEye processes attachments in less than 60 seconds …
We only selected McAfee because we are already using ESET NOD32 for the protection of our desktops and laptops. We didn't want to use the same software for our servers so we chose McAfee instead. I personally like ESET Smart Security better than McAfee when deploying it on a …
Trellix Endpoint Security ENS interfaces better with other tools and is simpler to use. provides wider endpoint protection and more centralized control than SentinelOne's automatic response. Trellix Endpoint Security ENS preserves McAfee's dependability while offering newer …
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.
During the pandemic all our users worked remotely that was challenging from security perspective, so we had to deploy the endpoint protection system with cloud based monitoring server. By doing that we were able to keep safety for users workspaces even though some of them did not connect to VPN for a long time
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.
My biggest flak with McAfee Endpoint Security is that it is quite resource-intensive. It does tend to make the system a little slow. You get security at the expense of your machine's speed.
Even though the drive encryption makes the system more secure, it takes a lot of time to first enter the very long password, and then for it to decrypt the whole machine. This sometimes clashes with Windows update and causes a lot of complications which leads to boot loops.
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.
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
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.
The support is pretty good, and I haven't had any issues with getting the highest quality technical support when there are issues. Tech support representatives that I have dealt with know the product quite well and have solved many issues that I have had with the product in the past. The only issue I have with support is that it can be quite expensive.
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.
We only selected McAfee because we are already using ESET NOD32 for the protection of our desktops and laptops. We didn't want to use the same software for our servers so we chose McAfee instead. I personally like ESET Smart Security better than McAfee when deploying it on a desktop or laptop because I think it protects the PC better. When it comes to web protection, policy updates, etc., McAfee is the better choice and that's why we deployed it on our servers.
This tool helped us in delegating the asset safety responsibility to the client level by 80%, leaving 20% for the management console.
With a decent pricing, the benefits are slightly above expectations. The ROI is good.
But, considering most of the malware comes from internet, with a good email security appliance and next gen firewall in place, the online security alerts are now redundant. It could be something that can be termed as overkill on the budget.