What is Reddit's opinion of
AV-Comparatives.org?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ AV-Comparatives.org website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
100 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
To be fair Windows Defender has typically scored very low in anti-virus certifications the last few years. As you can see on AV-Comparatives last annual test (page 9), Windows Defender did worse across the board than even McAfee.
A few years back Microsoft had this to say (emphasis mine):
> "We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are," she said. "The natural progression is that we will always be on the bottom of these tests. And honestly, if we are doing our job correctly, that’s what will happen."
> She added that Microsoft wants "everyone to do better than us because we know that makes it harder for the bad guys".
Yeah, this post is humorous but Defender is actually a great choice for users who understand what they are clicking on.
Source: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-february-june-2018/
Wait OP!
This thread is about to be bombarded with anecdotal experiences and subjective feelings and “Well, I’ve always been happy with...”
Don’t accept that mostly-useless information. We actually have very detailed benchmarks for antivirus and there’s no point in relying on anecdotes for antivirus in 2018.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparatives-reviews/
You’ll be most interested in Performance. And yes, Defender is one of the worst for performance. Microsoft did a lot of good stuff, but very little for performance.
It's not efficient: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-october-2018/
It has high false positive rates and not even that great of detection/protection: https://www.av-comparatives.org/vendors/microsoft/
Compare it to something like Bitdefender and it's obvious which is better (significantly): https://www.av-comparatives.org/vendors/bitdefender/
Also, the very popular "But I haven't been compromised therefore it's perfect" is not an argument, it's a meaningless anecdotal.
Personally, I use Bitdefender, using their 3 month trial then making a new account and so on, effective and "free".
MS seem to be aware of the problem, so if you have telemetry on and Avast/AVG installed, MS should be able to delay 1803 upgrades.
Before people start preaching Windows Defender for all use cases, outside of this (admittedly, pretty bad) edge case, 3rd party AVs still seem to have superior numbers. Better protection, better performance and less false positives.
Main upsides of Windows Defender are:
- guaranteed compatibility with feature upgrades
- not having a paid version to advertise
- having the biggest userbase (more data for cloud protection).
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-april-2018-factsheet/
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2018/
Also, this is a post about a news article about posts from this subreddit. We've come full circle.
The links are all the same.
File detection: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/avc_fdt_201609_en.pdf
Windows Defender is dead last. However, context is kind of important since dead last still only means one percent were missed, with the best being only a tenth of that. That's 99% versus 99.9%.
Can't be bothered going through the rest. Point is that calling it "hot garbage" is, at best, disingenuous.
Eh, only stating that he needs to be able to substantiate his claim as what he is saying is rather flat and can be read as hearsay. (E: Ok, hearsay might not be the right word for it, but I hope that it gets my opinion across.)
AV-Test does alright with its criteria, but AV-Compare I feel does a more thorough comparison (even though it might not be the most current at times).
Whether or not the AVs in question are better than MS' is a slightly different discussion.
But you are right, MS' does have the highest performance hit (p10) while having one of the lowest detection rates. So that does takes my post from scholarly advise to calling him out I suppose.
Time to re-read https://www.reddit.com/r/steam/wiki/secureyouraccount as a checklist to see if you missed a step. Also while users have their preference, all AV/AM are not equal and you better go with 5 star ones.
AV-comparitives ^(PDF) found Microsoft to do about as well as any third party vendor. They last released a report this August.
According to the independent org, AV Comparitives, it's actually pretty mediocre where security is concerned. Of the AV solutions they tested it had the second worst rate for preventing vulnerabilities, with a block rate of 98.4% where all but ESET and Total Defense hard 99+%. Their performance testing does agree that ESET is lightweight on end user devices though.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-february-may-2019/ https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2019/
The old version did a "scan" and give tons of fake messages about security etc, even popups outside the app. It installed a heavy process that would bog down the machine. Then asked for payment to remove these "issues". It also placed itself in various places that made it very hard to remove. Remove one thing, another running process would put it back in place, like malware.
This practice led to a class action lawsuit and $2M settlement. The original developer Zeobit sold it to another company. The new owner has a statement about the settlement here: https://mackeeper.com/settlement
They also said they fixed what's wrong with the app. But that's a lie. They're doing the same bullshit advertisement, but with a little disclaimer. Here's a popunder I got a while ago, I took a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/H3I369m.png
The statement at the bottom says that what's in the ad is their personal opinion and only used for advertisement purposes. Surely to avoid another lawsuit.
They're also giving the same fake messages about issues and then try to extort money from users. AV Comparatives did a test of the new version. The app found tons of issues on a freshly installed macOS: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/avc_mac_2015_en.pdf (20 MB, MacKeeper starts on pg. 50)
Shout out to the wonderful AV-Comparatives that has long been the source of knowledge on AV results and performance. Here's their most recent Real-World Protection Test: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/avc_prot_2017a_en.pdf
Top honors to the highest ranking ones this period:
- Bitdefender
- Panda
- Tencent
- Kaspersky Lab
- Symantec
- VIPRE
- Avast
- AVG
- AVIRA
Many of these are free products and not from a known cyber-attacking country like Russia (or the US).
Putin: "Use Kaspersky antivirus, it has the lowest false positives rate." /s
Yes, Malwarebytes is solid. This guy is wrong. You absolutely should use anti-malware if you aren't very knowledgeable with computers, Windows Defender is not as good as the better ones out there like Avast, BitDefender or Malwarebytes.
Yes, they are annoying and if you know what you are doing and security isn't a huge deal for you, then you can get away without using them. But just being smart still won't leave you fully protected.
I am a programmer and I'll tell you there are tons of threats that someone doing everything right might encounter and Windows Defender won't spot. I don't use them personally with full-time protection, but I have it installed.
One of the issues with these newer web-based Node.js/npm applications out there is they use dozens, if not hundreds of outside dependencies, which themselves use dozens more and are constantly updating. If anywhere in that dependency chain gets injected with malware, everything using it could get infected as well (which I suspect might be what's happening in this case).
Well that some bullshit you're saying there. There are plenty of companies who measure the effectiveness of anti virus software when faced with zero day attacks and known security flaws.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-april-2018-factsheet/
https://selabs.uk/en/reports/consumers
So no depending on how you define "most of them", your back of envelope opinion doesn't mean anything.
There is also the new gen of anti virus software like Webroot, Hitman pro, Cylance, Crowdstrike and others. And if you think commons sense will protect you then think again, all it takes is one file or attachment from an infected pc to get you, clicking on an ad or simply being phished. The thing I'm most afraid of is ransomware and cryptoware cause at least with a normal virus/malware I can reinstall my windows. Imagine working on a project for Uni and near the due date getting infected and having to pay some random amount to get your stuff back. Macs and Linux are not protected either as they've seen more and more targeting by hackers.
I personally recommend webroot as it has such a small footprint that you can barely see it's there.
MSE/Defender works but is far from a "top performing" antivirus. It usually lands between the bottom and middle of the industry for catch and false positive rates. The main benefit I see is being included in windows, having a small footprint, and not bothering users too often compared to some other antiviruses.
Here's one of many sources to support the mid-tier catch rates (check page 8): https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/avc_prot_2017a_en.pdf
The management also relies on SCCM and Intune, which while not a dealbreaker does add to complexity to get the management features of other antiviruses.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-february-march-2019-factsheet/
Honestly, it's a waste of money. PS, the line graph in this composite is referring to false positives, not anti-virus effectiveness.
I'm here before the inevitable flood of brainlets thinking they're smart and saying to use Windows Defender, or even worse, Le Common Sense 2018 xDdd.
Windows Defender has the worst performance impact.
It also has relatively high false positives and is vulnerable to any malware that runs as administrator as it doesn't have a proper self defence module. Before you say some shit like just don't run shit as admin, think about installers. CCleaner once was compromised and had a malware infected installer on their official site. Obviously you'd run that as administrator as it's expected and trusted.
If you want a good, free option, use Bitdefender or pirate Avast (it's stupidly simple and completely safe to do). If you're looking for something paid, get Kaspersky or Emsisoft.
It consistently ranks last in real world protection tests. I would not rely on it.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/avc_factsheet2016_09.pdf
Avast or Avira are 2 free alternatives that offer much better detection rates. Why take the risk?
https://www.av-comparatives.org does in-depth analysis of different AV softwares. Some that consistently perform well in lab testing are; Avast, AVG, AVIRA, Bitdefender, ESET, Kaspersky Lab and Panda. There are others, and different ones perform better in different scenarios. Windows defender generally underperforms most other third-party software.
There are people who claim that AVs aren't necessary if you actively monitor your browsing and don't compromise yourself which is true to a degree, but that assumes you make virtually no compromises to the security of your machine or mistakes in regards to browsing and connection habits.
Ideally you do your best to maintain the integrity of your operating environment through secure practices (security policies, firewall configuration, system and network monitoring, supplementary software, safe browsing habits and etc.) and Antivirus software helps to filter whatever gets through the cracks. Most people skip the first part, so the AV plays a more critical role.
I'd personally avoid Windows Defender, it's OK at best. It has lower detection rates, higher false positives, more system slowdowns, and double the full scan time of competing products. Even norton rates better than windows defender.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/windows-defender,review-2209.html
https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1926596,00.asp
*While I don't really mind the downvotes, it's interesting that those downvoting are not replying with any information of their own debating what I said. If I'm wrong show me where, I'm OK with learning.
You can look at a comparison here. The free built in AV from Microsoft had a fair placing with 99.5% protection, but got dragged down because of "user dependent" problems. They were tied in second place for number of compromises, which are infections that the AV never caught. User dependent means that the user will be warned, but still allowed to install after clicking "install anyway" or something similar. There are several antiviruses that place better even though the have more infections that are not caught at all because of this.
My opinion: As long as you don't think you know better than your AV, just use the free one from Microsoft.
I've used them all, and the thing is they all change over time, not just that, but each has it's own sets of strengths and weaknesses, so I honestly suggest instead of asking here you read AV Comparitives. You also need to keep in mind what kind of regulatory compliance you might fall under, HIPAA, PCI, etc.
That being said, due to some recent issues with questions about foreign spy infiltration of AV vendors like Kaspersky, I would suggest favoring same country vendor, eg, USA vendor if you are in the USA.
I would also suggest considering MBAM business in your list, not a pure traditional AV replacement, but a more practical approach to protection.
Those combined with a HIDS like OSSEC and a bit of hardening with EMET 5.5 should give a good baseline defense.
If you check all the "independent" and "externals" antivirus comparatives, usually they are among the best in its area, always. I'm using its software right now. However and despite that, seems that they have been linked to Russia and Trump in 2017 firmed a law that bans the use of Kaspersky Lab software in the US government.
AV Comparatives does a regular tool-review/analysis here: https://www.av-comparatives.org/mac-security-reviews/
> "I'm currently running a Macbook Pro with El Capitan"
If it's capable of running Sierra.. you should update it. Major releases of macOS contains lots of security fixes. NOT updating and expecting 3rd party products to protect you is a little faulty logic.
As others have said.... scanning with Malwarebytes is a good start. "CCleaner for OSX" is also good (although it's not an Anti-infection tool.. it's just a Disk/Temp cleaner.. but still a good idea)
Many of the large vendors offer free scanning tools. I'd look at ESET, Sophos, ClamXav, BitDefender, Comodo, Mcafee (Intel),
- Repost.
- Hotel.
- av-test.org antivirus test results
- av-comparatives.org antivirus test results
- Trivago.
According to AV Comparatives it's good...
https://www.av-comparatives.org/enterprise/comparison/
We don't have the Defender ATP that comes with the higher end M365 licenses so I can't say from experience.
I'd avoid Avast if I were you, I was a long term user but after finding out about them selling user data I quickly moved on. Do a quick google search and you'll see it's been pretty well reported now.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2020/
Microsoft Defender is as capable as any other antivirus solution, so that would be my suggestion as it is free.
Is this AV popular anywhere? Doesn't seem to even be tested by AV comparatives monthly testing. If they can't even pass that test, it shouldn't be trusted by anyone ever.
This test against Symantec isn't exactly them shooting for the stars either. PDF
Ignore specific recommendation, often people recommend what is easy to use.
Make up your own mind, there are two sites that assess security software:
No. It's a rumour spread by the west so you use American made anti-malware programs so that they can access your data.
Here's the truth - even if Russia had put a backdoor into Kaspersky it'd be no different than literally every big name American anti-virus. Your data (unfortunately) is being passed on and used constantly whether you like it or not.
At the end of the day Kaspersky has scored the highest consistently on performance, reliability and security. It's joint first with Bitdefender with VIPRE coming in second Source.
I wish I was being paid for this but I'm not so here's my genuine, personal 'review' - Kaspersky has almost never slowed down my PC even when doing things such as full scans and other shit like that. It's constantly found threats almost instantly whenever they're on my PC (although that is rarely because of Common Sense^TM). The ONE time I've ever had a severe virus on my PC it completely took control, reverted the changes done to files, fixed everything and then restarted with a detailed report of what happened.
The downsides of Kaspersky? It's Russian - scary. Except it's not but I can't tell you how to live your life. The actual downside? Large Windows updates can cause incompatibilities and ultimately a few BSOD's. The blue screens are not bad at all though and do not harm your PC - it's Windows response to finding an important, low-level driver that it feels is broken or could cause damage. Although I admit there shouldn't be BSOD's at all and that's absolutely Kaspersky's fault for not fixing issues before updates are pushed through to W10. Other than that it can sometimes be annoying to use the UI but I can't name much else.
It’s not an agreed or disagree. There are benchmarks for these types of things. But it does look like my data in my head is a year out of date. Looks like they fixed much of its detection issues a few months ago benchmarks here
It still has an impact on system performance. Third party AV's have much less impact on system performance than Microsoft AV does... It's actually one of the worst performers.
Read this.
It's one of the worst choices all-around. Literally the only thing it has going for it is that it's free.
You can't go wrong with either solution based on their third party testing results. There are definitely benefits to going with a larger company that has a very large install base though. A big part of that comes down to the threat intelligence a vendor gets based on how many users they are protecting. Symantec also recently acquired Blue Coat Networks which also contributes to their intelligence network as well.
I personally run Norton on my gaming system and haven't had any performance impact. However, I encourage you to take a look at these third party sites which will give you a better idea on where all vendors stand.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/
AV-Comparatives shows Windows Defender to be the consistently worst-performing AV of their tests - although it should be noted that they didn't cover all AV solutions, including Norton.
AV-Test shows Norton 2016 to be significantly above average in performance and security, and meeting industry standards in usability.
The link below may be of some interest to you regarding ease of installation/use for various solutions. Be sure to perform additional research on scanning accuracy.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/avc_linux_2015_en.pdf
Bitdefender Free uses the same protection as paid versions, minus several features. For a live AV, it works great, just like other Bitdefender products. Protection information has been verified by third parties, and you can see my favorite source below:
The best tip I could give is Don't
Symantec is so poorly rated in terms of protection these days that you're better off running Windows Defender
AV Comparatives has rated it so poorly that they don't even bother giving it a rating or including it in the Enterprise test categories anymore...
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/business-security-test-2020-august-november/
Buy something else
windows defender works best when online
Malware Protection Test March 2021 - AV-Comparatives
if you mean "Microsoft defender offline scan" option its explained here:
Yes.
Yes yes yes yes yes.
A thousand times yes. A million times.
We have McAfee imposed by our security team on our corporate laptops and Linux servers. On the desktop it catches SFA compared to a good AV, and consumes an obscene amount of resources. On the Linux boxes it...well, it's a rootkit. It's a rootkit that occasionally loses its mind and serves absolutely no useful function.
For Windows, check out AV Comparatives for the current best; and check back every year or two, because the top three or four take turns at sucking for a while.
You're closer to reality; using the real-world tests (not linked by OP sadly), Microsoft has the highest number of user-dependent misses plus the third highest false positive rate:
https://i.imgur.com/Khb9zTI.png
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/avc_factsheet2018_03.pdf (4-page PDF)
Anti-virus software Performance Test May 2017: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/avc_per_201705_en.pdf
As for your second question Windows Defender is pretty good in the Real-World protection test http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php
Here:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf
Avast has good detection and scored well in malware protection but had 10 times the amount of false positives as adaware or bitdefender.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/avc_rem_2016_en.pdf
Avast fell roughly middle of the pack when it came to removal of threats, scoring an 85 which was better than 10 of the 18 Avs tested. It was beat by 5 other AVs and tied 2.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/avc_phi_2016_en.pdf
Currently there are only 3 AV's that also offer anti phishing protection so there isn't much to go on here. The last heuristic / behavior comparison was done in 2015 and avast had a rating of 67% ranking it 8th out of 12 tested
Consumer Reports
AV-Test
AV-Comparatives
These are my sources for the data. Sorry I didn't make that clear with this iteration.
Both free versions of AVG and Avast are pretty good, though the free versions can be a bit "naggy." The free, built-in Windows Defender generally ranks towards the middle or bottom of the pack for free anti-virus solutions. The free Malwarebytes scanner is also useful, if you suspect an issue, but it doesn't provide any real time protection. Personally, I use Kaspersky, because it's well-regarded and they offer a license that allows me to have it on up to 5 devices simultaneously.
I'd recommend that you take a look at AV-Comparatives and make your own choice.
Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always be running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn how to safely use his/her own computer.
From AV Comparatives website - Unfortunately, we cannot provide results for Microsoft Defender. During the testing, despite being configured for automatic updates and performing manual updates, parts of Defender were not correctly updated. As there were no error messages, this issue was only discovered at the beginning of June and required a new installation of the OS.
Personally I'd go with Kaspersky and just uninstall its VPN, as it has probably the best protection at the moment, is one of the lightest AVs, and its default settings are pretty set and forget.
My usual second choice is ESET, but it has settings upon settings upon settings, so you'd want to avoid that :P
And next we'd have Emsisoft, so it's definitely a good option.
Get something that had better zero day coverage and is a complete endpoint protection solution, that way your don't have to supplement. We use bitdefender. https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/summary-report-2018/#award-winners
I feel like people are being just too broad generic not really giving answer, or too paranoid.
- you have win10, you dont need to install antiviurs, it comes with defender and currently it ranks well on av-test and on av-comparative with only issue being false possitive.
- ublock origin browser extension mentioned is a good idea
Dont bother with anything else. Not even malwarebytes that is mostly fine, but it still tries to sell you pro if you dunno where to click.
Anyway, safest place is in the cold calculated embrace of linux. btw I am using arch.
Also noteworthy is that many AV products are simply licensing the av engine or signatures from one of a handful of major av companies.
The same goes for mobile but here's a breakdown of some of the major PC av solutions: https://www.av-comparatives.org/av-vendors/
ex:
Bullguard really uses Bitdefender but rebrands it
I always suggest Avast (provide a good base software, and high detection scores frequently). The 'best' changes frequently and can be determined by so many different factors ultimately it is user preference. I suggest exploring https://www.av-comparatives.org and finding a program that has scored well and then looking into what they offer and see what suits you best.
I used them a long time ago so I have no idea how they are now, I'd imagine they're fine though, the main problem with free versions is that they lack features, as for their paid version well if you're going to buy something then I see no reason why you shouldn't go for the best, as far as I know the one that has consistently ranked as one of the best if not the best has been Bitdefender which is why I chose them over anything else, so far they have been 10/10.
I'm personally not a safe surfer, I like to live dangerously and enjoy my browsing without fear of getting any bullshit on my PC so I like having a good protection.
There are sites that run tests which can help you choose what's best for you https://www.av-comparatives.org/
I have not personally used Vipre, but their "internet security pro 9.6.3.6" got a highest tier ranking in AV-comparatives March 2017 malware testing: https://www.av-comparatives.org/malware-protection-test/
So If she already bought it, I think you should try it out.
It's good or it used to be when i last checked.
Check this out for a bigger picture on AV:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/real-world-protection-test-february-june-2017/
Top 10 in Order
Trend Micro
Bitdefender
Panda, Tencent
Kaspersky Lab
Symantec
VIPRE
F-Secure
Avast
AVG
AVIRA
Yes it could pick it up in offline mode. Some AV are better than others at this though (data here). Some are quite crap once put into offline mode.
Whether it would clean up other things like the Scheduled Task and even the AV block, will depend on the AV.
All of this assumes it has the definitions to pick up this malware. I'm not sure how new the malware is, but it has only come into focus recently.
I would have agreed with you back in their early days. That solution has come a long way. The research doesn't lie. If it was sponsored by a vendor then I would take it with a grain of salt of course.
However, if you don't believe one third party you can also check AV-Comparatives. Look at the percentage of compromised endpoints running MS Defender.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/avc_factsheet2017_02.pdf
This is generally bad advice.
Common sense gets you most of the way there, sure, however most infections nowadays happen through exploits in software you have no control over (your OS, your browser, some plugin somewhere, etc). Lots of clever malware can hide within legitimate looking downloads because of infected third party sites/servers. Infections can come from within your home network or public ones such as school via other infected PCs (or the new IoT craze). Infected USB drives, deceitful emails, popular new torrents, etc.
If you'd rather not run security software, that's fine, but recommending everyone do the same is bad. At the very least, keep MSE enabled, which has improved in recent versions of Windows. There are free, decent AV solutions such as Avira and BitDefender which can do job as well. Unless your computer is really slow/old, there really should not be much impact in regular use outside of a system scan, anyway.
AV comparatives publishes performance benchmarks two times a year https://www.av-comparatives.org/performance-tests/ sadly the results for October are not in yet. You should base your choice on the PC mark score alone since some of the other things that they factor in their overall evaluation are not gaming related. Contrary to what the others are saying, Windows defender is crap when it comes to detection rates and staying away from sketchy sites doesn't make you safe, there are viruses and trojans that spread via usb drives and other threats that are hidden in fake freeware software built to look credible that might pass unnoticed even to expert users.
​
Completely FAKE, don't spread this non-sense information! Check the actual data:
OFFLINE Detection Rate - ONLINE Detection Rate = ONLINE Protection Rate - False Alarms
ESET 88.7% 88.7% 99.90% 0
Microsoft 54.8% 95.9% 99.85% 4
Keep your ESET dude, it's doing great and will keep you protected!
Here is a decision based on actual unbiased data: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
Along with detailed reports like: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/avc_prot_2021a.pdf
Det här har sagts i snart tio år (eller när Windows 10 nu kom). Men faktum är att Windows inbyggda antivirusprogram år efter år presterar i den absoluta botten.
av-comparatives gör oerhört grundläggande tester, en av de senare går att läsa här.
Kaspersky is probably one of the lightest AVs at the moment - https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2021/
ESET is another great option if you're looking at paid options that offer great protection and have a light performance impact. Look at the Internet Security suites from it and Kaspersky and see which you prefer, can't go wrong with either.
Kaspersky Security Cloud Free may be slightly easier on your system but, as you already know, your laptop is the main issue - Performance Test October 2020 - AV-Comparatives
It does reduce performance a little but you really shouldn't be running no antivirus. Windows Defender is particularly bad for performance impact so might want to try something else https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-october-2020/
One resource that might be of assistance to you is https://www.av-comparatives.org/consumer/
Then there's also https://www.av-test.org/en/
These two are held in pretty high regard. By using their results you can find a solution that fits you. But the best way to find out if you like a particular piece of software is to try it out. If you want your antivirus to quietly chug in the background, without interacting with it, I think you'd really do well just using Windows Defender.
If you want additional security vs Malware, you may want to consider Malwarebytes. They have a free version, which doesn't scan in realtime, but lets you manually scan your computer for malware whenever you like. It's a great addition to any antivirus solution, and like I said, has a totally free version, that doesn't nag you or anything. I can only recommend them!
Best of luck!
>Considering the only AV program with lower impact is BullGuard, which gives a lower level of protection combined with Defender's automation & lack of nagware etc puts it easily at No.1 overall IMHO.
Number 1? Please. Far from the #1 av.
Here's another test which shows Defender has the worst impact on system performance: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2019/
> SentinelOne
SentinelOne is a decent endpoint agent, but OP already has a decent EndPoint Agent (FortiClient).
Gartner Magic Quadrant of Endpoint Security Agents
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/business-security-test-march-april-2019-factsheet/
Hmm... now that I'm actually reading about it FortiClient isn't as good as I thought it was.
Anyway, it's in poor taste (IMO) to jump on an opportunity like this.
You don't know where OP is located, or what services he requires.
Poor taste sir.
I'll approve the comment (it was reported already) so OP can decide for himself (since I honestly believe he needs professional assistance).
The fact a program is "native" doesn't make it use less computer resources.
And even if we're arguing about performance, did you even bother looking up statistics? According to this website, Windows Defender is literally on the first place in performance impact. Check facts before you start talking.
As someone else pointed out, common sense is your best protection. But the whole thread should stop dismissing Avast, because it might very well be the best free antivirus available.
Does it do its job? Yes. The controversy on many mainstream low end AV's is that how well it does its job, the bloatware/spyware it comes with, etc.
There are better alternatives out there. I know it's very tough finding the right AV. It goes the same with VPN and Browser. However, much research and preference can help you find the best fit for you. It can be overwhelming, but like I said with much research you will find what suites you. I suggest checking out some sources below of you're interested.
Subreddits: - r/antivirus - r/privacytoolsIO
Genuine AV Testing Agencies: - https://www.av-test.org/ - https://www.av-comparatives.org/ - https://www.virusbulletin.com/testing/
My personal opinion as far as overall best AV's are: - Emsisoft - ESET - Windows Defender
If you're really into privacy and security like me, then I'd suggest using Malwarebytes for scans, Bleachbit for cleanup, and Air VPN for top notch privacy. Also I'd look into Windows LTSC 2019 + MSMG Toolkit, for debloating and removing spyware from Microsoft (Only if you're experienced).
Anyways good luck, and I hope you did not get offended, I'm only trying to help you out!
Cheers :)
As far as AV protection goes, even Windows Defender should be good enough if you use your head (and no AV program will help you if you don't). However, one day WD started to massively slow down my PC for some reason, so I switched to BitDefender (free) and I can't recommend it enough - it has nearly flawless results and is lightweight on system resources.
Some friendly advice - I realise your intentions are almost certainly to be helpful and to share knowledge and provable facts with your fellow Redditor, but don't even bother pointing this out as you are beginning to see first-hand shattering people's illusions about Windows Defender is a guaranteed downvote magnet. (in my experience, regardless of which subreddit you're in)
I gave up posting links like this a while ago. You will never see a comment explaining those downvotes either. It's quite an odd phenomenon for which I have no rational explanation.
Norton is a respected AV company and performs well in independent tests: https://www.av-comparatives.org/consumer/. AV comparatives are independent tests with no bias.
Kaspersky is good as well. The price for it is dependent on sales and stuff, but you can get it cheaper than $80 on amazon and on the USA website.
I personally dont know about the refund and uninstall question but,
I am sure they have some sort of refund policy and can get a full refund within X days.
Never heard of Norton not allowing to an uninstall. In any case, there are removal tools you can use to make sure you get ALL of it off your system.
Sounds like you have some buyers remorse based on feedback you read here. I get it. But, there is no harm in trying out Norton for a few days and see if you like it.
The real PSA is that people using Windows Defender at all are needlessly bogging down their systems when they could be using a lighter-weight AV that isn't as detrimental to performance across the board.
There is data to back this up at av-comparatives.org. If you have a different opinion or further data to look through I would love to hear/see it, but a program like bitdefender free does as good a job as defender and does not bog down your system.
I also had issues with windows defender conflicting with my music player (foobar 2000) in windows 10 and making the computer slow to a crawl when it was open, which is apparently because of some of the UI plugins i use for foobar2k, but i've never had a problem with them in the past 5+ years in windows 7, only with defender in windows 10. other AV has no such problem.
Bring on the downvotes, hivemind.
Defender actually has pretty some of the worst performance. I'd never use it on any system just for that: slows down average machines and takes away precious performance I've slaved away for on my high-end rig.
Defender is the worst in file-copy performance. I really wish they'd figure that out.
For some reason, the way companies have McAffee configured makes it eat up every unused cpu resource. This may not be the case for your home installation, so if you don't notice any performance problems, McAffee is okay as an antivirus solution, just okay though.
It's probably not worth paying for McAfee as there are free solutions that perform better than it. I'm going off the information supplied by av-comparatives, in particular the overview graph on page 9 of the 2017 summary. Remember, nothing is perfect so use this as piece of information and not as the be-all and end-all in your decision. AV-comparatives is not comprehensive in all the antivirus tools it looks at but it evaluates a solid selection of them. Most of the software they evaluate have free versions, but they only evaluate the free versions of Avast, AVG, Panda, and Windows Defender so keep that in mind.
Avast, AVG, and Panda are all free and appear perform better than McAfee overall. If you're going to pay for antivirus, get Bitdefender. If you have concerns about being a person of interest to the Russian government, I would avoid Kaspersky, despite it's high performance.
I don't think you can claim Qihoo "cheats" in AV tests by using Bitdefender's AV engine. It's pretty common that there are AV engine companies and there are the AV apps who pay to use their engines
https://www.av-comparatives.org/av-vendors/
I think those AV comparative sites are shit in how they compare antivirus products. In their rankings they include "ease of use" and additional features for their rankings which muddy the rankings, in my mind. Like with phone AV products, remotely locating my device is not a malware feature yet they throw that in as a value-add feature.
Regardless, you're saying they cheat by licensing use of another companies AV engine- which is pretty common practice.
It's a bit old test but i think it can give you an idea about each av vendor
AV Comparatives analysis of Data Transmission of security products
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/avc_datasending_2014_en.pdf
It wasn't and now it is. Not that it's a bad one (no ideas, didn't see any objective tests) but the fact they're automatically pushing for trial instead of asking for it at setup (like before) is enough for me to never install one of their product again.
Off topic but : https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/avc_factsheet2017_07.pdf
I am VERY surprised to see free products like Avast & AVG doing better than Kaspersky or Eset. I might review my annual subscription.
/r/techsupport has a "Which AV do I use?" link in their side nav which points to: https://www.av-comparatives.org/
probably trustworthy.
i haven't used antivirus in about 20 years (aside from windows defender i guess).
https://www.av-comparatives.org
You can use a website like I linked above which compares them, so you could try and find the "best" one. But as long as the AV is updated fairly a lot it should do you fine. If you are pirating, once again I recommend not to download a crack if you don't have to, some people have made YouTube videos giving out licenses so you just have to put it into your AV to activate. This is just because someone could always hide something in the AV like a virus, but as long as your getting it from somewhere safe you should be fine, but you might not even have to use a crack.
> Comparison sites don't show you their tests or reveal methods,
that's odd, because just throwing words in to google shows you're wrong on that. av-comparatives.org for example has a performance impact report, it's a short report. Only 12 pages, but it doesn't get in to results until page 8, the rest is introduction and test methodology. What you're demonstrating here is a nonchalant attitude to AV comparison reports that appears to exist in this subreddit, probably due to confirmation bias or something.
I'm not sure there is a better way to determine the effectiveness of an AV solution than long term, multi faceted tests of each and every solution. Would love to hear of a better way, but for now the industry seems fairly happy with independent tests.
My problem with them is that people may look at a particular month and form an opinion based on that in isolation. The take away is that some tools are certainly worse than others, none of them are perfect, and none of them are consistent from month to month. However it is all information, and we should never shy away from that.
If you're using mobile AV from any reputable company like avast!, DrWeb, Bitdefender, Panda, Trend Micro, Symantec etc, you shouldn't worry. Just avoid no name stuff that's overflowing Google Play. I wouldn't ever trust those.
Use this as reference (the 100+ test): https://www.av-comparatives.org/mobile-security/
I make Linux virtual machines. There's a couple hundred distros that are active, so there's plenty of stuff to learn and play with. I also read about different anti-malware products and see how they're doing.
Okay, I did a quick bit of searching and I do concede that it does not affect performance as I initially thought it did based on these tests. But my point still stands that it's gotten to a point that it's so hard to remove that they actually had to release a tool just to uninstall Norton. Also about being intrusive, I know for a fact that they like being pre-bundled with new computers with a supposed free trial that starts nagging you to subscribe when it expires (no link, just personal experience from about 3 months ago).
Also, kind of suspicious about your links considering at least 3 of them seems full of SEO keywords about Norton being good. This is just opinion though and I have no proof.
Take a look at this, maybe it is helpful in helping you decide.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/mac-security-test-review-2021/
Then I guess I got nostalgic thinking about the past since these days I dabble at the most so I got long-winded, my apologies.
​
I don't own a Mac anymore but I have three favorite security solutions all of which are available for Mac.
Avira
BitDefender
Kaspersky
Malwarebytes
Beyond those ESET, F-Secure, and Sophos have at times over the last few decades been acceptable in many ways but I feel can't rank with the top three mentioned. LONG ago Trend Micro and Panda had some good showings but in the grand scheme of things that was fairly short-lived. WebRoot was hit and miss it seems.
I prefer these due to for the most part being low impact and having high detection capabilities as well. These are the two most important factors in my opinion. I do not worry too much about the ability to remove an infection as I think if the detection rate is high enough an infection is less likely. I also worked with so much virus removal over so many years if a situation arose I am equipped to handle it.
I am not a fan of McAfee, Norton/Symantec, Avast/AVG.
Luckily macOS is still less targeted compared to Windows so having some sort of backup is the best security measure you can have. I suppose Time Machine is the go-to solution but I truly am not certain.
Defender is fine if you are a careful user of the internet, I will however recommend Bitdefender paid options as the process monitoring and network connection monitoring is great.
A great site to check out performance of products is https://www.av-comparatives.org/
>showed it using fewer resources than KAV (Free)
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2021/ + tons of anecdotal evidence disagrees with that.
>We should all use what we like or what works best as that varies so much from one person to another.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Defender is heavier, has worse detection rates and most crucially can be easily disabled or in other ways manipulated by malware.
I ran Kaspersky several years ago and also had similar problems with it. Ultimately, after much research, I just went with windows defender. No fuss no muss.
check out this site: https://www.av-comparatives.org/comparison/ I found it very helpful
> anti virus PC Protect
Uninstall it. https://malwaretips.com/threads/total-av-is-it-a-scam.80362/post-715109 and /r/antivirus/comments/mdx079/i_deleted_totalav_and_im_thinking_of_getting/ indicates it's just a fake AV. Use real AV such as those listed in https://www.av-comparatives.org/list-of-consumer-av-vendors-pc/, which does includes Malwarebytes.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2021/
This isn’t as good of a source as SE labs but have no reason to mistrust it. As you can see defender and total defence are by far the worst followed by malware bytes then everyone else with little to no impact.
EDIT: additional defender seems to just randomly decide to update or scan even when using the PC. This might have been fixed but from my last time using it (last year) it was still prevalent.
Kaspersky is one of the lightest AVs at the moment - https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2021/
Why do want to avoid it?
Free - Kaspersky, Avira, Sophos, Bitdefender
Paid - Kaspersky, ESET, Emsisoft, Avira, Sophos, Bitdefender
Listed in order of preference. Obviously only use one.
You can see how they compare here:
Protection - https://www.reddit.com/r/antivirus/comments/lbkvjb/summary\_of\_av\_test\_results\_february\_2021/
Performance impact - https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2021/
Kaspersky Internet Security (or Kaspersky Security Cloud Personal, they're essentially the same) is probably the best AV at the moment, with ESET Internet Security being a very close second. Other good options are Emsisoft, Avira, Sophos, and Bitdefender.
Emsisoft and Sophos have a bigger performance impact than the others, so that may rule them out for you, and Avira by default comes with a lot of 'extras'. Sophos however does use a webUI, meaning you could access its settings, scans, etc. from a completely different device, even remotely.
You can see how they all perform here:
Protection - Summary of AV Tests - Feb 2021
Performance impact - Performance Test October 2020
The Internet Security suites from Kaspersky and ESET are probably the ones you want to look at (obviously just using one). You can have a look at how they perform here (particularly in comparison to Windows Defender):
To add to what Jay has said, you can have a look at how different AVs have scored in recent independent tests here - Summary of AV Tests - Feb 2021
You can also see their performance impact here - Performance Test October 2020
Based on those, the free AV I'd recommend would be Kaspersky Security Cloud Free, with other good options being Avira, Sophos, and Bitdefender.
If you want to look at paid options instead, Kaspersky Internet Security (or Kaspersky Security Cloud Personal, they're essentially the same) is probably the best AV at the moment, with ESET Internet Security being a very close second. Other good paid options are Emsisoft, Avira, Sophos, and Bitdefender.
You should only use one real time AV, though as futuf19 said, the free version of Malwarebytes is a great on demand scanner, for when you want a second opinion on a file, or have an issue you can't resolve (just deactivate the premium trial and run on startup setting).
Other than that, get a good adblocker browser extension such as uBlock Origin. There are other extensions such as Avira Browser Safety and Emsisoft Browser Security which you can add as well, though I'd avoid Malwarebytes Browser Guard, as it did little in the way of protection when I used it, and just slowed down my browser.
Here are the stats and comparatives. We use it along with the full ATP suite, it's pretty good.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/business-security-test-august-september-2020-factsheet/
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-jul-aug-2020-factsheet/
Please read these independent reports:
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-users/
https://www.av-comparatives.org/enterprise/
https://www.virusbulletin.com/testing/
I encourage you to EXCLUDE Symantec from your evaluations. Symantec is in the middle of a corporate implosion caused by years of bad management and corporate greed.
So long as you are purchasing a mainstream, commercial product you should have confidence in it's ability to detect and defend against similarly mainstream attacks.
Where things start to get interesting is in fringe, niche and truly advanced attacks. You need to understand your environment and prioritize what features and characteristics are important to you and your users.
Now, all of that having been said, IMO, it's really unwise to go looking for test-virus material to prove the effectiveness of a product.
Let the anti-virus professionals do that for you.
The EICAR fake-virus exists to help with testing and /u/Boyceyx already provided you a link to it. If you want to play around with that, go for it. It's totally safe. But it isn't a virus either. It's just a string of characters that every AV product has been told to treat as a virus.
> It fucking sucks compared to the big AV companies. AV-Comparitive’s malware detection tests proves that (70% offline detection and 85% online detection while the other big players are 95%+ for both)
Untrue, it doesn't "fucking suck". Ironic how you should quote AV Comparatives and not actually check the latest results.
From the latest test results (Feb - May 2020), Defender scored a protection rate of 99.7%, total of 752 samples blocked - that's only 2 samples behind F-Secure, NortonLifeLock and Trend Micro, and only 1 sample behind Kaspersky and Panda. It's not the best, but it's better than Avira, BitDefender and ESET and almost as good as the the top three.
Defender was awarded a 3 * "Advanced+" rating by AV-Comparatives. That means it doesn't "fucking suck".
And here's my source link, since you failed to provide one: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-february-may-2020/
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2020/
Kaspersky, ESET, Avira, Sophos, and Bitdefender are all my usual recommendations, pretty much in that order (ESET being the only one without a free AV). Of those, only Sophos isn't included in recent results (you have to go back to 2016 or look elsewhere, and doesn't do great). The rest perform better than using Defender.
So with performance impact being a concern, I'd say look at Kaspersky, ESET, or Bitdefender. My recommendation being Kaspersky Security Cloud Free.