Metaphysical orthodoxy maintains that the relation of ontological dependence is irreflexive, asymmetric, and transitive. The goal of this paper is to challenge that orthodoxy by arguing that ontological dependence should be understood as non-symmetric, rather than asymmetric. A series of cases across a wide range of ontological commitments are presented, and it is argued that each case should be understood as one in which the relation of dependence holds symmetrically. If these arguments work, however, they provide reasons to be skeptical of the way in which contemporary discussions typically lump dependence together with relations such as grounding and in virtue of, which arguably need to be understood as asymmetric. If the asymmetry of dependence is relinquished, interesting things follow for what can be said about metaphysical explanation—particularly for the prospects of explanatory holism.