Security Shootout: 10 Top Antivirus Apps Put to the Test

73

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Philips

These ideals actually are awesome. Thank you for the enlightenment and the sharing. This issue must be answered well. 

LEGO Ninjago Limited Edition Set #2521 Lightning Dragon Battle

avatar

Nickgrnt

Antiviruses are must when you have any sensitive data on your dedicated server or on your local computer system. I have personally experienced the damage caused by the Viruses. My 8 years database on my server was damaged in such a way that not even a single file was recovered. There were lot of projects I had worked on and that was my real portfolio which I lost due to a virus. Since then, I have always taken care of my server and used hardware as well as software firewall to protect my sensitive data.

avatar

JamiePeri

Nowadays everybody just gets one of those free antivirus downloads and they think they are secured; it is not like that! You need a good antivirus program and a firewall ( both paid ) and this is just to be protected against wrong clicks. If a hacker wants to hack you ( you = a normal person ) you can't do anything about it except to unplug your computer.

avatar

LanceDacus

I have always used free antivirus program and never had any problems with viruses or ad-ware. I think that if you know how to use the computer and be a careful when you download something or read an e-mail you are safe. It's good that the AV companies get more products on the market and not just a all-in-one security pack. Maybe in the near future I'll try one.

avatar

PokerCat

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.

avatar

Norton7486

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. 

avatar

Athlonite

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!

avatar

protivakid

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.

avatar

Paul_Lilly

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

avatar

lance

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???

 

avatar

Paul_Lilly

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

avatar

isamuelson

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/

An example they gave is this:

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.

 

avatar

JE_Delta

Why was Kapersky NOT included in this Test? It is one of the best AV suites out there.

avatar

nightwishlj

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.

avatar

romado59

 

Would you compare ESET to Subbelt software Vipre Premium!!!

avatar

Mic.me

Aye.... I wondered my Vipre wasn't on thie list since its all-in-one as well.

avatar

roninnder

Why did I have to open 10 tabs to see the scores for these programs, couldn't there have been some kind of summary?

avatar

highsidednb

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.

avatar

Athlonite

Because there's not much in the way of a difference between the two 

 

Play till it breaks then learn how to fix it!

avatar

133794m3r

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. 

avatar

Muerte

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.

avatar

Frameboy

way to cynical...

 

Next you'll be blaming WWII on MaxPC.

avatar

ferariman

it all started with murphy saying hitler had a milk stash

avatar

tnguy

the original post not only has merit, but is also accurate. Your reply has neither, and for wittiness scores a FAIL.

avatar

Computer Whiz

You should add AVG.  Oh and also can I add this information to my website?
 http://www.peoplesreviews.99k.org

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

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.

avatar

tnguy

Only if you run it in GOD mode. 

avatar

Pinkyblister

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.

avatar

IFLATLINEI

ESET, Comodo but no AVG? I never even heard of the first two I mentioned. This article is useless to me.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

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?

avatar

roninnder

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.

avatar

tnguy

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?

avatar

Morete

G Data for the win!

avatar

Jasker

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.

avatar

dreamsburnred

 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

avatar

DBsantos77

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!

avatar

gendoikari1

I use Clamwin. Open source (no nagging), and it works well if you practice safe browsing. Anything more than that, I use MBAM.

avatar

gendoikari1

Good to see the spam filter's been doing its job...

avatar

DBsantos77

 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!

avatar

needforwin

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

avatar

Scatter

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?

avatar

Havok

 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

avatar

smashingpumpin

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)!

avatar

habuza

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.

avatar

HockeytownWax

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.

avatar

HockeytownWax

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.

avatar

Ironmonkaa

Ive seen tons of computers come in packed with viruses with Kaspersky on them. Doesnt seem to work that well.

avatar

Neufeldt2002

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.

avatar

PawBear

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?

avatar

PawBear

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.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.