We performed a comparison between Intercept X Endpoint and Symantec Endpoint Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Intercept X Endpoint combines two products into one solution, offering strong performance, server protection, and efficient threat management capabilities. Users praised Symantec Endpoint Security for its regular virus signature updates and comprehensive administrator's console. Intercept X Endpoint could benefit from better integration with third-party vendors and improved support for virtual infrastructures. Reviewers said Symantec Endpoint Security could improve its graphical interface, Linux support, and scanning capabilities.
Service and Support: Some users found Intercept X Endpoint's support team knowledgeable and supportive, while others expressed dissatisfaction with responsiveness. Some users said Symantec customer service was helpful but slow, while others have expressed general dissatisfaction with support.
Ease of Deployment: Intercept X Endpoint has a straightforward initial setup, with quick installation and simple configuration and maintenance. Some users said they occasionally encountered issues that required reinstallation. Some users said Symantec Endpoint Security was easy to set up, while others struggled with the installation. Deployment time varies depending on the customer’s environment.
Pricing: Intercept X Endpoint is generally seen as fairly priced, but some users think it’s on the higher end of the price scale. The cost of Symantec Endpoint Security depends on the licensing terms and necessary security components. While some users find the price acceptable, others believe it could be more affordable.
ROI: Users say that Intercept X Endpoint offers exceptional defense against ransomware and zero-day threats, leading to a positive return on investment. Symantec Endpoint Security demonstrates strong stability and incident prevention, leading to reduced downtime. It offers a favorable return on investment.
"Fortinet FortiEDR's firewalling, rule creation, monitoring, and inspection profiles are great."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"It notifies us if there's any suspicious file on any PC. If any execution or similar kind of thing is happening, it just alerts us. It doesn't only alert. It also blocks the execution until we allow it. We check whether the execution is legitimate or not, and then approve it or keep it blocked. This gives us a little bit of control over this mechanism. Fortinet FortiEDR is also very straightforward and easy to maintain."
"The solution was relatively easy to deploy."
"he solution is an anti-malware product that integrates well with other vendor products such as firewalls, SIEM, etc. It captures threat intelligence and gives you better visibility. The product also has sandboxing features."
"It is a scalable solution...The initial setup of Fortinet FortiEDR was straightforward."
"All of the features are very important for anyone who is supporting a large number of computers."
"The most valuable features are the cloud administration and the strength of the ransomware protection."
"One of the best use cases involves synchronized security staff, which allows us to manage both the firewall and the anti-virus features from the cloud."
"It is not just a simple virus scanning product. It handles more advanced needs."
"It is easy to interact with, and its cost is also good."
"This solution offers very good performance and it has great features."
"The most valuable features are the range and restriction."
"The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"When they started they found it very easy; not easy to implement but easy to use. We started with the headquarters here and later we also implemented it for all the subsidiaries in the region, in other countries. They have a centralized solution, so they can help other countries in management."
"I think the key thing for me, is interoperability, in that you can deploy it to Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's been a really important feature in the last two years. Now there's one management console to cover all three OSs."
"It just works. We have a console, and I can see it at a glance. I don't have any problems with it at all."
"This solution helps in that I can control quite a few computers from our central location, with ease."
"It is a stable solution...It is a very scalable solution."
"It's customizable, we're able to tune it to work with our products."
"The administrator's console is very good and easy to manage with it. Deploying patches, definition updates and report is simple."
"This solution has helped us because it is really useful for blocking all kinds of viruses."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"The SIEM could be improved."
"The security should be strong for the cloud. Some applications are on-prem and some are on the cloud. Fortinet should also have strong security for the cloud. There should be more security for the cloud."
"I think cloud security and SASE are areas of concern in the product where improvements are required. The tool's cloud version has to be improved in terms of the security it offers."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"The graphical interface could improve. Additionally, adding less expensive mobile device support would be helpful. Other solutions have this feature."
"I have not done it, but integrating it with authenticating the users on the Windows system looks a bit complicated to me. It could be because I don't understand it."
"They should work on the logs and events. Sophos Intercept X needs to increase the interface test so that it can export to a live event."
"The majority of our systems are MacBooks and their solution release cycle is slow to endorsing or support the MacBook's latest OS or hardware platform. For example, when Sophos macOS Big Sur version 11 was released, it took them a while to support this version of OS. A similar situation occurred when the MacBook M1 hardware CPU was released. They have not fully supported the native M1 CPU to this day. They need to speed up the solutions release cycle."
"The product’s DDoS and AI features must be improved."
"Mobile device management is a challenging area, and it can be improved. Some areas in the DLP solution can also be improved. It has the DLP capability, but it is not an all-out DLP program. I would like to see them improve the DLP solution in terms of reporting and possibly network monitoring. Currently, they only do the reporting parts of it."
"When we load Intercept X, it puts a load on the device. When it is scanning, it slows down the device. A system with basic specifications completely slows down till the scan is complete. They should improve this part."
"Through Sophos Central I would like to see the ability to zero in and produce a report about the challenges being faced by a particular machine and user, to know if a virus is appearing only on that specific machine or also on others."
"I would like to see even more customization, the possibility to do whitelisting. It needs to be a little bit more liberal on whitelisting, even to use the name if needed, instead of hashes."
"I would like to see fileless attack protection."
"There are limitations because everyone these days has hybrid working; however, the endpoint does not work for us unless we are connected to a VPN, which is a major limitation."
"Using the management console is a bit complex. There are many features that we cannot use and we could use some help. We need some assistance to make them work better. They need to add features to make it simpler."
"It would be interesting if Symantec Endpoint protection could also manage Windows Defender. If they were to add a feature, it would be nice if you could see the Symantec client and the Windows Defender client in case you choose to deploy both."
"The technical support could be a bit better."
"The support from Symantec has been poor in my experience. They did not have the knowledge to help us with the issues we were facing."
"Need to improved orchestration for broken clients fixes."
Intercept X Endpoint is ranked 7th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 101 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Security is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 140 reviews. Intercept X Endpoint is rated 8.4, while Symantec Endpoint Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Intercept X Endpoint writes "A standard offering with good threat analysis but reduces machine performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Endpoint Security writes "The solution has given us visibility into compliance within our whole system and helped us ensure everything is updated". Intercept X Endpoint is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Wazuh, whereas Symantec Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Intercept X Endpoint vs. Symantec Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Having used both I'd go with something other than either of these two solutions.
Both deep dive onto your local computers making them impossible to remove, Should the need arise you'll end up having to reimage equipment to fully remove the products. Bloated and they dig their hands into everything on the local machines.
If these are your only two choices, then go with Sophos as it's a MUCH better product.
If you refer to the MITRE Attack analysis, BitDefender is the best, in terms of 100% accuracy and the most number of detections, for the second consecutive year.
@Udhayakumar Murugan,
First, I don't know the budget of yours (which is important) and if you have a budget then you must choose two different vendors to protect you.
And you must have a hardware firewall - it's your first protection layer and you can choose Sophos firewall + Kaspersky endpoint or FortiGate firewall + Sophos endpoint.
My advice to you: FortiGate firewall and Kaspersky endpoint.