McAfee vs. Symantec: Dueling in consumer and enterprise

McAfee vs. Symantec: Dueling in consumer and enterprise

Summary: The most recent quarterly reports from McAfee and Symantec highlight some trench warfare in both the enterprise and consumer markets.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Security
17

The most recent quarterly reports from McAfee and Symantec highlight some trench warfare in both the enterprise and consumer markets.

Both companies reported solid quarters, but Symantec was the one that really knocked the cover off the ball. Symantec reported fiscal second quarter net income of $150 million, or 18 cents a share, on revenue of $1.47 billion. Non-GAAP earnings were 36 cents a share, three cents ahead of Wall Street estimates.

But what was curious is the reason behind Symantec's surge. Sure, CEO Enrique Salem has given Symantec more focus, but the quarter got a lift from small and mid-sized businesses and consumers. The consumer business coupled with improving enterprise trends enabled Symantec to maintain its outlook for the next quarter.

Salem said on a conference call:

We started to see initial signs of progress in SMB security as we renewed our relationships with channel partners given the launch of our new security products. We also saw strength in the consumer segment as our business continues to benefit from our market-leading products...The strength of our Consumer business was driven by strong Norton 360 sales and by our relationships with eight of the top nine OEMs...During the quarter, we won consumer online backup deals with Toshiba and Acer. We now have backup relationships with four of the top five OEMs.

Add it up and Symantec's consumer business was up 6 percent to $463 million in the second quarter compared to a year ago. All other businesses---security and compliance and storage---were down anywhere from 3 percent to 9 percent.

Enter McAfee. McAfee's quarter was also solid (statement). The company reported fiscal third quarter earnings of $36.8 million, or 23 cents a share, on revenue of $485.3 million, up 18 percent from a year ago. Non-GAAP earnings were 62 cents a share, two cents better than estimates. Revenue, however, fell short of the $487 million projected by Wall Street.

McAfee also projected fiscal fourth quarter non-GAAP earnings of 61 cents a share to 65 cents a share. Wall Street was looking for 63 cents a share.

Under the hood though, McAfee showed a 25 percent jump in its corporate business. Third quarter corporate revenue checked in at $308 million. On the consumer side of the house, McAfee had revenue of $177 million, up 8 percent from a year ago.

Based on growth rates, it appears Symantec is taking it to McAfee in the consumer market. In the enterprise, McAfee, which is much smaller than Symantec, appears to be gaining some strength from a smaller base.

Topic: Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

17 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Worked for SYMC - products inadequately tested

    We rearchitected stuff as it was going out the door. That experience was one more reason I eventually switched to Mac.
    HollywoodDog
    • Working for SYMC

      You should have stuck around...
      Then you could have said to have been part of improving of the process . Just compare Norton 2009/10 to previous releases.
      Snarfiorix
      • It'll be a cold day in hell

        before I ever try anything by Symantec again.

        They destroyed their good name all by themselves.
        tikigawd
        • but...

          you could always switch to Mac...
          Snarfiorix
    • You switched to Mac

      because of Symentec's inadequacies...?

      mmkay

      I guess you think Symantec is the only Anti-malware company out there.
      tikigawd
  • I trust neither Symantic nor McAfee for security.

    MSE+ThreatFire is all I need, including a basic firewall
    in Windows Vista 64-Bit. :)
    Grayson Peddie
  • Prefer Noron Over Mcafee ANY DAY

    The protection rate of both are excellent in my opinion but.. Norton is there when you need them.

    If I have a stupid silly question or a major issue all I have to do is click the support link and someone comes online and helps me fix any and everything without having to send a million emails to get a problem fixed.

    I own Norton Internet Security 2010 and Norton 360 3 Premier but I am using Norton 360 V4 Premier at the moment.
    EricHilton1987
    • Backwards to my experience

      Difference might be that I'm using McAfee in a corporate environment not consumer. However, we used to use Norton and dropped it due to issues with their corporate support. McAfee was much more responsive when we contacted them. Symantec may have improved since then but at that time, contacting tech support was like watching your toenails grow for sheer speed and excitement.

      At home, I've used multiple anti-virus/anti-spyware systems and for now, am using AVG.

      I don't use software firewalls, etc. since the box I use as a firewall does a good job without using resources on the enduser computer and even gives me nice reports on attempted attacks, scans, etc.

      As usual, YMMV.
      DNSB
  • Bloatware

    I wont have any of it.
    Crestview
  • RE: McAfee vs. Symantec: Dueling in consumer and enterprise

    Too bad McAfee SUCKS BALLS. The most infected computers I get to clean for big bucks either have TrendMicro or McAfee. I don't understand why McAfee enterprise is so much better than consumer.

    Norton on the other hand has really turned the corner. Norton 2010 is incredible considering I stopped using them in 2003 when they really started to bloat up. 2010 is night and day, I even paid for it.
    duhrain@...
  • RE: McAfee vs. Symantec: Dueling in consumer and enterprise

    hahahahaha MSE + ThreatFire? LOL! That's great. I bet you don't do squat online to be able to survive with the combination. I've used ThreatFire and to say it's a joke is an understatement (like everything from PC Tools).
    duhrain@...
    • Odd...

      Looking at AV Tests 1st October 2009 on Spyware Doctor with Antivirus, it seems to score very good.

      Overall on-demand detection (556,224 samples) 99.46%
      Wildlist Malware detection (on-demand and on-access) 100%
      Behavioral/Dynamic detection (on-access) 100%
      Overall system disinfection (active components) 100%
      Rootkit disinfection (active components) 100%

      Maybe you have some other test results or data to share with us?
      Snarfiorix
      • no bias there ...

        You're on PC tools site and quoting stats about which is the best product? No doubt their facts are correct but probably about as complete at MS's factoids about Vista when that started unravelling...

        Google reveals many comarisons from independent companies, and one such (with no implication reagarding its 'authority') is http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests
        dgrainge
        • That's fine, but

          your mentioned site didn't even show any tests related to PC Tools.
          Snarfiorix
  • RE: McAfee vs. Symantec: Dueling in consumer and enterprise

    Plenty of idiots out there. I fix PC's for a living, and out of bitter experience, we always remove any Symantec product and advise the client to keep it off... Once upon a time, Norton Utilities was the business, now they're just a bad joke.
    xcampbell
  • RE: McAfee vs. Symantec: Dueling in consumer and enterprise

    I trust neither of them when I go out there to buy a
    security product for my pc.
    Once upon a time when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, they
    were THE best.
    Thankfully ,I love my Avira premium security suite & if
    it dies someday,I will put my money on Bitdefender.

    (sorry mcafee & norton fans.;-))
    bhtani
  • RE: McAfee vs. Symantec: Dueling in consumer and enterprise

    The days are numbered for both of them. I remove trojans and viruses from Windows XP almost on a daily basis, from PCs with completely up-to-date Norton or McAfee. The protection they provide is sketchy and simply not worth paying for. I hardly ever see the same issues on Vista, and Microsoft Security Essentials is performing well on my PCs so far. With supurb freebies like superantispyware on the market, I'm amazed anyone still pays for security software.
    martin.connolly2@...