| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endpoint protection | IT operations and endpoint | 0% | 80 of 86 | 50% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint at 22% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Endpoint detection and response | Security operations | 0% | 37 of 55 | 50% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint at 30% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endpoint protection | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 44 → 80 of 86 |
| EDR | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 46 → 37 of 55 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Choose Broadcom Symantec if you have complex hybrid environments and need granular policy control” Kimi K2 · Endpoint protection · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best for Enterprise Complexity: Palo Alto Cortex XDR, Broadcom Symantec” Mistral Small · Endpoint protection · comparative prompt · alternative
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“the platforms with the most consistently reported red flags across user reviews are Symantec (post-Broadcom) and Guardio” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Endpoint protection · negative prompt · hard negative
“Why to avoid: Licensing has become frustratingly complex and expensive, and customer support has plummeted.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Endpoint protection · negative prompt · hard negative
“Lowest EPP spending intent (-26% net score in ETR); high replacement rates (13%); dated perceptions post-acquisition.” Grok 4.20 · Endpoint protection · negative prompt · soft negative
“While not universally bad, users express concern about: Broadcom's market responsiveness” GLM 4.7 FlashX · EDR · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 25 of the 25 answers that named Symantec Endpoint Security and are not a share of its labels.
Seventy-four of the eighty-three domain citations in answers naming Symantec Endpoint Security came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
What Symantec Endpoint Security's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: community.broadcom.com/discussion/symantec-endpoint-protection-14, community.broadcom.com/discussion/symantec-endpoint-virtual-appliance, community.broadcom.com/discussion/symantec-endpoint-protection-143-ru6, community.broadcom.com/discussion/symantec-endpoint-encryption-inquiry, community.broadcom.com/discussion/symantec-endpoint-protection-training. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Symantec Endpoint Security's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Symantec Endpoint Security, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Symantec Endpoint Security by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: