Security Shootout: 10 Top Antivirus Apps Put to the Test
Posted 04/16/10 at 02:17:03 PM by Paul Lilly
| digg_url = 'http://digg.com/software/Security_Shootout_10_Top_Antivirus_Apps_Put_to_the_Test'; |
| tweetmeme_url = 'http://digg.com/software/Security_Shootout_10_Top_Antivirus_Apps_Put_to_the_Test'; |
We test 10 popular antivirus apps to find out which are best at defeating today's myriad malware menaces
Once upon a time, the typical computer virus was annoying, and even a little destructive, but nowhere near as dangerous as what computer users face today. The stakes are much higher now, and if you’re not careful or haven’t taken the proper precautions, you’re a sitting duck for hackers to steal your identity and sell your private information to the highest underground bidder. Imagine waking up to find your bank account drained or your credit destroyed. And lest you think we’re exaggerating, consider that most U.S. military personnel aren’t even allowed to tote USB thumb drives and other removable storage devices anymore because of the potential harm of a virus outbreak.
The solution to all this is to not be caught with your virtual pants around your ankles, and lucky for us, antivirus vendors have stepped up their game with increasingly robust all-in-one security suites. In fact, unlike other technology categories, the field of AV continues to expand rather than consolidate, with an overwhelming number of apps promising protection and unique features. That’s where we come in.
To help you sift through the cruft, we’re going to revisit the latest versions of the antivirus apps that showed the most promise (or have been granted a mulligan) from last year’s roundup (January 2009), and we’ll pit them against five of the most reader-requested antivirus suites we haven’t yet reviewed. You’ll notice we’ve narrowed our focus to only two freebie apps this time around (Avira, last year’s champ, and Microsoft Security Essentials, Redmond’s highly anticipated replacement to Windows Live OneCare), so if you do decide to shell out for paid software, you’ll have a wider variety of suites to compare. If the app you’re interested in isn’t included here, let us know and be on the lookout for individual reviews in future issues.
Putting AV to the Test
For AV software to make the grade, it has to excel in each of these five areas
System Performance and Scan Speed
If there’s one thing we learned from last year’s roundup, it’s that not all security suites are as lean as they claim to be. Nor are all of them speedy. To separate the praiseworthy from the pretenders, we look at what effect each AV app has on our system resources, as well as subject each one to a full PCMark Vantage run and compare the results to that of a pre-AV state. We also evaluate how long it takes each security suite to sweep through our system, since an after-hours scan isn’t always an option.
Annoyance
We fully expect to spend a little time configuring our security options and digging through the advanced settings when we first fire up our AV software, but once we’re finished tweaking, we don’t want to be bothered. Security software shouldn’t subject us to useless pop-ups and benign notifications.
Features and Implementation
It can be a tough sell convincing users they should shell out for a security suite when free alternatives abound. But let us be clear about one thing: We’re not looking for which AV solution can cram the most bullet points on the side of the box. We do expect a certain baseline feature-set—spam blocking, spyware protection, real-time scanning, etc.—but we’re also looking for any unique (and useful) additions, as well as how intelligently they’re integrated.
Pricing
If we’re being totally honest, PC users can be a stingy bunch. Don’t believe us? Then explain why BitTorrent is so popular (and no, it’s not because everyone is in a rush to download the latest Linux distro). Freebie alternatives hold a clear advantage in this category, but we’re willing to concede the value of an effective, all-in-one security suite over piecing together a mish-mash of free antimalware products. The prices for all the paid apps featured here pertain to a one-year license.
Virus Detection
This is really what it’s all about, and to determine the overall effectiveness of each AV app, we take a multipronged approach. First, we fire off a pair of synthetic spyware and virus tests courtesy of www.spycar.org and www.eicar.com. This is followed by a bombardment of our own collection of malware. Finally, we hit up the seedier side of the web with reckless abandon.
Once we’re finished with our in-house testing, we compare the results with those of Virus Bulletin (www.virusbtn.com), an independent testing lab. We also take into consideration whether an app has consistently performed well year after year.
Next Page: The Reviews >>
Yet another vote for Kaspersky
Submitted by PokerCat on Mon, 08/16/2010 - 2:47pm
OK, you said there was going to be stand alone reviews coming, and there was one for AVG. Good.
Now that Kaspersky has come out with their update for 2011, how about a review? They used to be part of the round up.
As far as my own anecdotal experience, I got a rootkit from probably a flashed based ad on a web site that rhymes with buccaneer lake. Turned my laptop into a email spewing zombie. Tried AVG, got a couple things but did not solve it. Tried Avast, and it got a couple more things, but still did not find the rootkit. Kaspersky got it. Not the fastest, not the leanest, not the cheapest, but did the job. I think they have a free webkit removal tool.
Submitted by Norton7486 on Thu, 07/15/2010 - 3:50pm
Has anyone got any opinions on Acronis Backup and Security 2010? We use the Acronis True Image at my work and I noticed there was a security version which made me curious, and Maximum PC is usually my first stop to check things out.
and a show of how big and
Submitted by Athlonite on Thu, 06/24/2010 - 8:37am
and a show of how big and how often these AV solutions get updated would have helped aswell alot of people around the world are still on Dial-Up where smaller more frequent updates means more likely to be kept upto date and therefore remain effective
Play till it breaks then learn how to fix it!
Submitted by protivakid on Wed, 06/23/2010 - 3:18pm
I can easily see how they would get rid of AVG in their tests. My college job is fixing computers and most of the time when customers come into the store with a virus infested computer they are running AVG Free because some friend told them it will work just as good as any paid A/V. This is simply not true, AVG is good if you are smart about your computing habits but if you have to bring your PC to a store to have it restored or viruses removed you are probably the opposite of just that, opening every message from unknown senders on Facebook. A paid anti-virus usually has additional features to protect those ID10T users. Also from my experience MSE seems to be a better free A/V than AVG or "I’ll bug you once a day to buy me" AntiVir Free.For those complaining about Norton have you used the 2009 or 2010 products? I used to hate Norton 2008 and earlier however with the 2009 overhaul I agree with Maximum PC's 2009 roundup of it being one of the best anti-viruses. Give it a shot Norton offers a 30 day trial and if you hate it remove it.
To Maximum PC: I don't see how you can give Norton a 7 and McAfee an 8. From reading the article you said the only time Norton failed was when you turned it off and unleashed your archive where as McAfee even while enabled let some of that archive lose throughout the pc. I am not saying Norton is the best but from reading your reviews the final scores of both do not make sense to me.
McAfee scored higher because
Submitted by One4yu2c on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 4:32pm
McAfee scored higher because it did a better job of protecting our test bed. Let me explain.
We turned Norton off only long enough to download the dirty archive, not execute it. Why? Because we were curious if it was blocking the archive because it recognized all the viruses inside, or just a portion of them. Once it was downloaded, we re-enabled Norton, executed the archive, and lo and behold, Norton didn't stop all of them from wreaking havoc. The viruses inside the archive could have just as easily been distributed individually, and in that scenario, the result would have been the same -- Norton would have failed to protect the system. We were basically simulating this scenario.
McAfee, on the other hand, neutralized all the threats. We docked it a point because it didn't protect the registry, but it did kill the virus responsible.
-Paul Lilly
Submitted by lance on Thu, 06/17/2010 - 9:33am
Really Guys, How could you eliminate AVG from your review?
I have been using AVG free for several years and I want to know how it rates with the others. Can't you include an addendum for this?
Really, why did you not put it in???
Submitted by One4yu2c on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 4:12pm
Our review of AVG is now up on the site, you can check it out here:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/avg_antivirus_free_edition_90
-Paul Lilly
Avast doesn't have to be slow
Submitted by isamuelson on Thu, 05/13/2010 - 12:24pm
Avast has a caching option just like Norton does. You just have to make sure it's enabled. Basically, enable the caching of items for a full scan. When you do a quick scan, set it to check the cache first.
I set it up so that once a week, the full scan runs and updates the cache and also uses the cache. Then, daily (except for the day the full scan runs), I have the quick scan run, using the cache first. Definitely makes it faster.
In fact, as of April 2010, this feature has been implemented within Avast and it has improved the full scan by 2.5 times. You can read more at the following blog:
http://blog.avast.com/2010/04/25/how-to-make-the-full-system-scan-6x-faster-in-10-days/
On our test system (a Dell workstation with an Intel Core i7 CPU, 4GB RAM and Windows 7) the duration of the Full System Scan time suddenly went from 39:35 to 16:03 – meaning almost 2.5x speedup!
Avast Internet Security Suite 5.0 has gotten much better reviews from AV-Comparatives which rates it an Advanced+ (excellent) along with the following: Kaspersky, eScan, BitDefender, ESET, F-Secure, Norton, PC Tools, TrustPort, Avira, G-Data.
Kapersky
Submitted by JE_Delta on Fri, 05/07/2010 - 5:12pm
Why was Kapersky NOT included in this Test? It is one of the best AV suites out there.
Submitted by nightwishlj on Thu, 04/29/2010 - 11:17pm
have fun with software http://www.itoolsoft.com/blog/
Oh i see you put detail comparing results, but it is still very hard to decide which is more attractive to me
what's more, im more confused.
Submitted by romado59 on Mon, 04/26/2010 - 7:02pm
Would you compare ESET to Subbelt software Vipre Premium!!!
Submitted by Mic.me on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 10:22am
Aye.... I wondered my Vipre wasn't on thie list since its all-in-one as well.
Submitted by roninnder on Tue, 04/20/2010 - 2:03pm
Why did I have to open 10 tabs to see the scores for these programs, couldn't there have been some kind of summary?
Submitted by highsidednb on Sun, 04/18/2010 - 9:08pm
Why wouldn't you test the non-free version of Avira? Seems silly to me. You test AV software that you have to pay for so why not another? Rather unfair IMHO.
Submitted by Athlonite on Thu, 06/24/2010 - 8:28am
Because there's not much in the way of a difference between the two
Play till it breaks then learn how to fix it!
Submitted by 133794m3r on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 8:13pm
Not once did they actually say any real information to know of how they did the tests. How many files were scanned? How much data was scanned? What was the system specs on the computer you used? What was the OS? What type of scan did you do?
All of these questions were not answered so i can say full heartedly that i will not accept these numbers. For all i know they could've been doing a "quick scan" on one and a "full deep scan" on the other. Without knowing this, it's very clear to realize that they did not provide enough relevant information for any of us to truly make a decision.
Way to be unable to actually follow the rules of conducting tests without giving us the variables that were used. All you gave was the types of programs used not any other information. Knowing this makes it very inconclusive.
Submitted by Muerte on Mon, 04/19/2010 - 5:52am
Actually it looks like they were doing tests on prevention. That was pretty obvious from the last introductory paragraph. The scanning was only done to test preformance of the scan uif something got through the defenses.
The OS and type of computer is irrelevant really since your relying on the AV to do the job not the OS. And while the performance of the scan might be affected by the computer, since they did not give actual time of scans, it all pretty relative anyhow. One scan is either slower or faster than another. As long as they use the same computer for each test, relative is good enough for this type of analysis.
Submitted by Frameboy on Sun, 04/18/2010 - 7:55pm
way to cynical...
Next you'll be blaming WWII on MaxPC.
Submitted by Computer Whiz on Sun, 04/18/2010 - 6:58pm
You should add AVG. Oh and also can I add this information to my website?
http://www.peoplesreviews.99k.org
Ok I am following the
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 4:10pm
Ok I am following the findings of this match up and switched from Norton Internet Security 2010 to Eset Smart Security v4.2.40.0. I expect to be able to browse porn with complete reckless abandon with no consequences.
Submitted by tnguy on Mon, 04/19/2010 - 4:18am
Only if you run it in GOD mode.
Submitted by Pinkyblister on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 11:08am
I still use NOD32 from ESET. It has a small footprint-uses 49MB of memory and takes care of spyware so well I rarely run MalwareBytes any more. A spyware scan always shows up none found. If I should find a webpage that has a rogue program trying to get to my machine-it always stops it and no harm is done. That's about all you can expect out of an AV program.
Submitted by IFLATLINEI on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 10:34am
ESET, Comodo but no AVG? I never even heard of the first two I mentioned. This article is useless to me.
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 4:44pm
Useless? They are showing you the best of the best here. They compared the top AV suites. What's hard to understand about that and how is that useless? Now you know that Eset and Norton are the Top 2 AV Suites and Eset is the best of this bunch. So how is this a useless article?
Submitted by roninnder on Tue, 04/20/2010 - 2:02pm
I'm not sure about ESET and Norton being the top 2. Eset scored a 9, but Norton only had a 7. There were 3 other suites that scored an 8 and another that tied Norton with 7. At best that puts Norton at tied for 5th, unless you're going by intangibles.
Submitted by tnguy on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 10:05am
I posted a comment and an edit/addition. The first post was here, but the subsequent was spam filtered. Now nothing is here. What gives? Does MaximumPC delete posts that disagree with their findings?
Submitted by Jasker on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 10:15pm
It's really confusing when reputable
sites disagree with each other. Av-Comparatives claims to be
independent and they found none of the issues you did with Avira, and
additional issues with MSSE.
Submitted by dreamsburnred on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 9:35pm
No panda cloud av test?
Its a cloud AV but boy does it ever suck at 0 day detections.
I use MSE all the time and its the best IMO.
Avast is second best :).
-DBR
Submitted by DBsantos77 on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 9:28pm
You know, I might just make the move to another website to post whatever I got to say. This "spam" filter has done absolutely nothing, in stopping spam. There was not much spam to begin with. So to have a completely unstable anti-spam platform that blocks legitimate posts is entirely counter-productive in pushing discussion.
Three weeks, still counting and NOTHING has been done. Care to explain MPC?
-Santos
http://dbsantos77.carbonmade.com/
MAXIMUMPC STAFF: PLEASE FIX THE CRIPPLED SPAM FILTER!
Submitted by JuanSolid on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 3:51pm
And it blocked me, surprise. No spam before this, now there is 300% more all saying the spam filter screwed their post up. This is DRM esqu, and since it causes more spam like these posts here, it is getting the same results as DRM. For a magazine witheditorswho hate DRM that goes too far, they sure created something much more annoying. At least we don't have to be connected to the net 24/7 while we po......or wait we do. This is theoretically more annoying.
The spam filter screwed me out of my posts point and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!
I use Clamwin. Open source
Submitted by gendoikari1 on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 8:00pm
I use Clamwin. Open source (no nagging), and it works well if you practice safe browsing. Anything more than that, I use MBAM.
Submitted by gendoikari1 on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 8:01pm
Good to see the spam filter's been doing its job...
Submitted by DBsantos77 on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 9:19pm
This is the second post from this person.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/web_exclusive/download_week_bin_manager#comment-66991
-Santos
http://dbsantos77.carbonmade.com/
MAXIMUMPC STAFF: PLEASE FIX THE CRIPPLED SPAM FILTER!
Submitted by needforwin on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 6:03pm
As far as I know, Kaspersky is the number 1 anti-virus sofeware. Things like Norton and McAfee are worse than nothing, because they slow your machine down and you still get infected
Submitted by Scatter on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 5:26pm
or Webroot?
Did you only rank the brands that wanted to be ranked? Aren't Kaspersky and Webroot large enough brand names to warranty being included?
Submitted by Havok on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 5:49am
But Webroot-kit is horrible. I have had to clean I don't know how many PCs that had Webroot running on them...
Mac OS X 10.6.3 "Bandaged Kitty" : Available now
Submitted by smashingpumpin on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 3:00pm
Darn you MaxPC! Another AV roundup and you've left behind Webroot AV w/
Spysweeper once again. Now I don't know where it stands against the
others. I thought this was a roundup of "popular" AV suites and
Spysweeper's definetely among one of em! What gives!?!?_______________________________________________
screw 3D! just really in it for the hurts(HZ)!
Submitted by habuza on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 2:32pm
Shame on you for pushing kasper the ghost on us. As far as AV/anti-mal solutions go i use Avast ( free, can't beat that for what it does ) and malwarebytes anti-malware. Cooty free system.
And remember, the best way to keep kaka off of your system : Don't be stupid.
Submitted by HockeytownWax on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 5:58pm
You get what you pay for .. Avast (free) is OK considering the price (and if you don't mind it using about 200MB of RAM), but its the reason you need MalwareBytes.
P.S. -- my 2nd AV choice would be nod32.
Submitted by HockeytownWax on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 2:06pm
Shame on you Paul Lilly !! I too am a computer tech. and have personally used Kaspersky ever since the CIH95 virus struck all those years ago. To have excluded it from your test list renders this article useless.
The greatest concern my customers express to me is "will it prevent another infestation ?". My greatest concerns are ... #1 - how often does it update its definition files ... #2 - how much RAM does it use ... #3 - do the background services it provides impare overall system performance.
Kaspersky least impedes system performance out of all the other crap on your list, and I've always felt scan speed is dependant on the CPU and quality of hard drive, so thats a moot point, although i'll admit poorly written code could also influence scan speed.
Kaspersky has so many features to choose from, and I'll have to admit, I turn some of them off to improve performance and avoid the 'overkill' effect.
Who seriously worries about boot time ?? If you hose your box so badly that you have to reboot more than once a week then shame on you ... you deserve to wait the extra 20 seconds for your anti-virus program to scan for nasties.
As far as pricing is concerned, Kaspersky is $50 a year for a 3 machine license. Flat out cheap for the amazing protection it provides.
I've been in the PC repair 'game' since 1996, and every infected machine I've seen in the past as well as the machines I see today had/have some sort of Norton program installed, be it anti-virus or system security suite. It's #1 on my shit list and has been right from the start. McAfee is #2 on the useless list, and I just laugh at the desperation of the others to keep up.
Kaspersky, HijackThis, and CrapCleaner are the only 'tools' you need to eliminate any web or email born infestation ... that and a little knowledge of what directories the bastards try to hide their nasty files in. If the system is unbootable then just boot to a Knoppix DVD and nuke the nasties by hand.
Bottom line Paul ... if you have Kaspersky installed you'll never have problems ... and to overlook an amazing piece of software like this shows how little experience you have in the PC world and don't deserve to be writing for MaximumPC.
Submitted by JuanSolid on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 5:47pm
Kaspersky got a lower score than norton. It uses 120-150mb still, and everything is set to manual mode unless you change it. How is a av/as software protecting you if it never runs an automatic scan of any type unless you prompt it? Most people just want hassle free protection bottom line, which is why so many catch viruses because they can't be bothered with pushing a button and slowing down their system.
The spam filter screwed me out of my posts point and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!
Submitted by Ironmonkaa on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 2:27pm
Ive seen tons of computers come in packed with viruses with Kaspersky on them. Doesnt seem to work that well.
Submitted by Neufeldt2002 on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 2:23pm
Really? The whole worlds virus problems are solved if you run kaspersky? The only thing you make a point of is how much you like it, I thought
it was an ad for a minute. I have known many people who have been infected with kaspersky running, my sister in-law comes to mind. I got to the point with her where I told her to smarten up or unplug, because I wasn't cleaning her machine anymore._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Please fix the spam filter it does not work right.
Submitted by PawBear on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 1:25pm
Real time protection and one scan a week is all I require. The issue of scan speed strikes me as a little nuts. Boot time? Once a day? I'll wait if it catches all the nasties. Shouldn't this be the emphasis?
Submitted by PawBear on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 1:24pm
I'd like to rely on MaxPc for this kind of info but I prefer av-comparatives dot org instead. I'm far more interested in how good an antivirus is at detecting malware than how fast it is.
Submitted by Scootiep on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 5:30pm
Amen to that. I'm not going to speak for everyone, but I'm GUESSING that most of the people on here have computers that can handle the extra memory usage from the slower programs that do a better job of detection/protection and still allow you to use multiple other programs simultaneously. My personal opinion is that the ratings should have been either solely based upon, or very heavily weighted on how well the antivirus software detected, prevented and removed viruses/malware.
To start press any key...ohh, where's the "Any" key. - Homer Simpson
Submitted by DollarBob on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 1:20pm
Hey! it shows bugs and not viruses. 2 different things!
Submitted by chad152 on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 1:16pm
I am surprised my McAfee's score. I do virus removal for a living and I see more infected computers with McAfee than any other security suite. It doesn't do much to stop rogue AV programs
Connect with Maximum PC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must Read Articles
-
Feature -
Feature -
Review -
Feature -
Feature
This Month's Issue
FEATUREDream Machine 2010FEATUREMatch Wits with the Geek QuizHOW TO Merge Multiple Music LibrariesFEATUREBe an Android Power User!WHITE PAPERAll You Need to Know about HDMI 1.4
Maximum PC on Facebook
© 2010 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.