Kaspersky Lab

vs. Symantec
How does Kaspersky compare to Symantec? A comparison between the two
reveals that Kasperskys innovation, resources and technology are all far
more advanced giving Kaspersky the clear customer advantage!
The difference is our superior approach. All components of our business security software
are written by our own developers. We havent acquired outside, incompatible technologies
and forced them into our solutions. The in-depth reviews and independent test results which
follow demonstrate that Kaspersky is the clear front-runner in endpoint protection, including
traditional AV-protection and innovative approaches such as Application Control & Whitelisting.

Best protection
Tester: AV-Test. Period: January December 2012
www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/award/2012/

According to January-February 2013 tests results Kaspersky Endpoint Security 10

confirmed highest level of protection with maximum protection score.

201
2

Kaspersky Endpoint Security was awarded BEST PROTECTION 2012 and BEST REPAIR2012
in recognition of its ability to remove active malware and to restore other system changes, as
well as its performance when detecting and removing specially hidden malware (rootkits).

BEST PROTECTION

201
2

According to corporate solutions test results over the programs 12 month period from January to December 2012,
Kaspersky Endpoint Security achieved averaged higher scores than Symantec Endpoint Protection in protection
and repair categories.

BEST REPAIR

Tester: AV-Comparatives. Period: January December 2012

www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_sum_201212_en.pdf

AV-Comparatives is a recognized authority providing independent Anti-Virus software

tests, operating rigorous test programs for all protection technologies. Detection rates are
measured, not just at a particular point in time, but over a considerable time period.
In these tests, Kasperskys AV-technologies have received the TOP RATED overallaward.
Symantec did not participate in the AV-Comparatives test program.

TOP
RATED

2012

Tester: Virus Bulletin. Period: April, 2010 December, 2012

Test Title: VB100 comparative reviews (corporate products for Windows platforms only).
www.virusbtn.com/vb100

Kasperskys corporate endpoint product has consistently demonstrated the highest levels of
overall protection. Consistently high test results and a steadily rising trend-line highlight this point
(seebelow). The Symantec corporate endpoint product participated in VB100 only 4 times during this
period (the last time was in June 2012 but without RAP score provided at the request of the submitters),
each time with lower results than Kaspersky.

100

VIRUS

August,
2012

June,
2012

April,
2012

December,
2011

October,
2011

April,
2011

December,
2010

August,
2010

June,
2010

April,
2010

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Deep implementation of application control and whitelisting

technologies, including default deny mode support.
Tester: Dennis Labs. Date: November 2012
Test Title: Application Control Comparison

www.dennistechnologylabs.com/reports/s/app-control/kaspersky/DTL_2012_KL-AppCtl1.2.pdf

Kaspersky Endpoint Security was the most fully-featured and functional solution for managing application control on
a network. It was relatively easy to use and provided a high level of detail for administrators compared to other competitive
solutions, including Symantec.
This comparative test looks closely at the features and abilities of security software that seeks to control which applications
run on the network, particularly concentrating on 2 major application control scenarios
a) Deny all non-work-related, non-authorized and non-legitimate software.
b) Defend against Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs).
In both test cases the Kaspersky Endpoint Security product demonstrated:
greater capability to build an inventory of software running on the network. Symantec product was was unable to
create a full inventory of the test network.
provision of more information about product category classification, supporting the creation of customized
application groups or the use of pre-defined groups;
implementation of best practice for testing internally created rules in observation mode, as well as the chain of
trust between applications and their updaters. Symantec scored quite poorly in the test labelled Does not adversely
affect business processes and users because it failed to manage trusted updaters at all, and was unable to defend
against corruption introduced via a compromised updater.
powerful and flexible policy management.
The test has also confirmed products abilities to identify, manage and protection vulnerable applications. Most were unable
to identify vulnerable applications, which severely hampered their attempts to further manage or protect them. Kaspersky
Endpoint was the only solution able to remove risks posed by using legitimate but vulnerable software.

Tester: West Coast Labs. Date: October 2011

Test Title: Application Control and Default Deny using Whitelisting

www.westcoastlabs.com/productTestReports/productTestReport/?ptReportID=75

The test cases were designed to focus on using whitelisting technologies to enforce application control, concentrating on a wide
range of both functionality and management.
Kasperskys performance was in a completely different league to that of Symantec.
Unique! Kaspersky allows automatic software classification according to 96 embedded categories
(i.e. IM, browsers, operating system files, etc.)
Unique! Default Deny allows the blocking of all applications running on the users workstation,
except those defined as allowed. Kaspersky is the only system fully capable of supporting a
Default Deny mode by using application control. This is achieved through a dynamic whitelisting
database and flexible categorization rules implemented in Kaspersky Endpoint Security.
In addition, Kaspersky Lab features a Golden Image category which includes the list of software
critical to starting operating systems. This significantly simplifies systems administration tasks.

SymantecBC-Customer/Global/V1.0
2013 Kaspersky Lab ZAO. All rights reserved. Registered trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners.