The Ultimate Antivirus Guide: 10 Top Programs Reviewed
The Ultimate Antivirus Guide: 10 Top Programs Reviewed
Posted 03/22/2011 at 10:03am
| by Paul Lilly
52
Comments
Print
Which AV product is up to the task of keeping your PC squeaky clean and immune to malware?
In some ways, visiting cyberspace is kind of like entering a crowded subway car during the peak of flu season. You’re surrounded by all sorts of germs—in the form of trojans, spyware, viruses, rootkits, etc.—just looking for a vulnerable host to invade and feed on. Once you’re infected, these pests can wreak havoc on your system, swiping your personal information and passwords, annihilating your credit rating, and stealing your identity. To avoid a potentially virulent attack, you need to take precautions.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could ward off both human and computer viruses in one (gooey) swoop?
Smart computing habits—like never downloading unexpected email attachments—are your first line of defense, but that’s not always enough. The best way to protect yourself is with a serious immunity booster, which is exactly what all-in-one security suites provide. Based on our prior antivirus roundups, it’s no longer a question of whether an all-encompassing antivirus package can provide adequate protection on all fronts, but which one does it best?
To find out, we’re pitting the 2011 versions of last year’s top five performing AV applications against five security suites we’ve never before reviewed. The two exceptions are ESET Smart Security, which hasn’t been overhauled since our last roundup, and Kaspersky Internet Security 2011, which we already evaluated and gave a 9 verdict / Kick Ass award to for its rich (and useful) feature-set and insane level of protection. If the product you’re interested in didn’t make the cut, don’t fret; we’ll continue to run stand-alone AV reviews in future issues. In the meantime, we’re anxious to see if any of these suites are as capable as Kaspersky at protecting your PC’s health.
How AV Makes the Grade
To earn a passing score, security suites have to excel in each of these five subjects.
System Performance and Scan Speed
We don’t spend hours tweaking our rigs to have sloppily coded software muck with system performance. That’s why we’re holding these suites accountable by looking at the overall performance picture. Compared to a clean install, we’re looking at things like boot times, PCMark Vantage benchmarks, file-transfer performance, and system resources. And, of course, we’re also interested in how long it takes to complete a system scan.
Annoyance
A security suite that’s constantly bombarding us with pop-ups and benign alerts can be just as bothersome as the malware it’s protecting us from. Your home security system doesn’t tell you every time a car or person walks by your home, and likewise, AV software should only interrupt you if there’s real trouble. We also take into account how easy (or hard) it is to navigate the UI.
Pricing
Most power users will bleed their PayPal accounts dry funding a hardware upgrade, like a dual-GPU videocard or smoking-fast solid-state drive. But why shell out any money on security software when there are so many free options available? That’s up to this year’s contenders to answer, and to keep them honest, we’re also including two completely free AV scanners.
Features and Implementation
Eight of the 10 AV apps in this year’s roundup are full-fledged security suites. What separates these packages from regular antivirus software are the extra components, from enhanced spyware protection to spam controls, and whatever else each vendor decides to stuff in the box. But equally important is how meaningful these features are and how well they’re integrated. Think of it as the difference between ABS brakes, which we’ll take when shopping for a car, versus an air freshener, which doesn’t add any value. The same concept applies.
Virus Detection
We’ve had success separating the wheat from the chaff in the past, so we’re not changing things up drastically here. We start by subjecting each AV app to synthetic spyware and virus tests provided by www.spycar.org and www.eicar.org. Next we romp around the web’s more treacherous destinations looking for trouble. We cap off our in-house testing by lobbing our own collection of malware grenades, which we’ve added to this year. Finally, we evaluate the results of independent testing labs, like Virus Bulletin (www.virusbtn.com), AV-Comparatives (www.av-comparatives.org), and AV-Test (www.av-test.org).
Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0
Low on options, high on protection
Microsoft didn’t even bother to announce a version upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0, and at a glance, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. But make no mistake, Microsoft’s team of mechanics tweaked the scan engine and made some other changes underneath the hood.
MSE provides a handful of options for scheduled scans, but doesn’t include the ability to set up two different types (Full and Quick) on different days.
Let’s talk performance. Last year’s version plodded through our files without any sense of urgency, and the speed didn’t pick up during subsequent scans. This time around, the scan engine didn’t waste time investigating clean files that hadn’t been altered. The result is that a laborious 27-minute scan was reduced to less than eight and a half minutes the second time around. Still not great, but MSE’s at least headed in the right direction.
MSE leaves a smaller footprint than an Oompa-Loompa. We recorded a boot penalty of just 10 seconds, and things only improved from there. Copying a 3GB collection of files to our local drive took the same amount of time with or without MSE installed, and memory usage increased only a few percentage points.
Version 2.0 manhandled our updated collection of malware and sailed through another round of testing from Virus Bulletin, earning its second consecutive VB100 award on the Windows 7 platform. And unlike before, version 2.0 keeps the Windows Firewall in check and alerts you if it’s turned off. We just wish there were more to play with. You won’t find nearly the same level of customization as a paid security suite. MSE lets you configure a scheduled scan, for example, but you can’t schedule a Quick scan one day and a Full scan on another. It’s also frustrating that you’re unable to pause scans, only cancel them outright.
With an improved scan engine and the same stellar protection as before, Microsoft Security Essentials is still the freebie AV app to beat.
Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0
FREE BIRD
Light on resources; unobtrusive; integrates well with Windows.
FREE WILLY
Short on features; scan speed still needs work.
Free, www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials
Norton Internet Security 2011
An antivirus for geeks, not newbs
With the release of NIS 2011, it’s apparent Symantec is still trying to shed its lingering image in power-user circles as a resource pig, perhaps a little too hard at times. The new user interface is sleek and sexy with plenty of configuration options to drill into, but it’s also a little daunting for less savvy PC users. It’s the polar opposite of Microsoft Security Essentials, and if you’re experienced with computers, that’s great. Your Aunt Agnes, however, probably won’t make heads or tails out of it all.
Norton’s redesigned UI wins on sex appeal but suffers from a case of information overload.
The main window provides on/off switches for a variety of modules, and if you dive into the Settings menu, you’ll find a whole bunch of additional tools. It’s sheer overload for Aunt Agnes, who won’t understand the difference between Browser Protection, Safe Surfing, and Download Intelligence, all of which appear on the main interface. Hover over any of these, however, and Norton does a serviceable job explaining what they are.
Unlike last year’s version, trying to trip up NIS with our malware samples proved futile. Symantec upgraded its SONAR technology, which pays close attention to how a program behaves rather than relying solely on virus definitions. The idea is to catch zero-day threats that slip into the wild, and it worked beautifully with our contaminated archive. NIS also shields against potentially harmful websites, though you can still truck through if you suspect it’s a false positive.
Installing Norton had no impact on our test bed’s boot time, and system scans were among the fastest of the bunch. We’re beating what’s left of a dead horse at this point, but this isn’t the same Norton from three-plus years ago. Our only real complaint is that Symantec perhaps caters a little too much to enthusiasts and risks alienating some mainstream users.
Norton Internet Security 2011
SNL
Fast scan engine; low system impact.
MAD TV
Confusing interface for inexperienced computer users; lacks a virtual keyboard.
$70 (1 Year, 3 PCs), http://us.norton.com
McAfee Internet Security 2011
A valiant shot at redemption that clanks off the back rim
Like Norton, McAfee’s struggling to overcome an unflattering reputation among the tech-literate in hopes of expanding its user base beyond the OEM crowd, and last year’s completely retooled version went a long way toward that goal.
Not much has changed in the 2011 version. It’s still easy to navigate, comparatively light on resources (versus pre-2010 versions), and malware detection is still a mixed bag. McAfee started off strong by breezing through our initial spyware and virus tests, and we nearly finished bombarding the suite with our expanded collection of dirty files without incident. But when a zero-day test file slipped past McAfee undetected, our test bed gave up the ghost and entered a BSoD loop we couldn’t fix. McAfee isn’t the only program that had trouble recognizing the file; we uploaded it to Virus Total (www.virustotal.com) and only 12 out of 42 virus scanners flagged it as malicious. Nevertheless, McAfee’s behavioral-based scanning didn’t detect anything was wrong, and that’s troubling.
Like many antivirus suites, McAfee uses a color-code system. A green bar means all systems are go. If anything needs your attention, it will turn red.
We turned to the malware experts to see if our findings mirrored theirs. Virus Bulletin denied McAfee a VB100 award because it let a virus from its WildList—a list of currently active viruses in the wild—slip through undetected, and according to AV-Test.org’s test results, McAfee performs below the industry average in protecting against zero-day threats. Not good.
McAfee isn’t without merits. The two-way firewall is incredibly easy to configure, and for mobile warriors, the 2011 update adds CPU monitoring intended to improve battery life. It does this by delaying automatic definition updates and other background tasks when the system disk is in an idle state. And contrary to popular assumption, McAfee had little impact on system performance. Kudos for all that, but when the rubber meets the road, McAfee’s airbag may fail to deploy, sending you crashing through Windows.
McAfee Internet Security 2011
AIRBAGS
Uncluttered UI; configuring the firewall is a breeze.
AIRBALL
Over-reliance on virus signatures leaves you vulnerable to zero-day threats.
$40 (1 year, 3 PCs), http://home.mcafee.com
More like this
mikebo
July 02, 2011 at 11:28am
I use the latest Avast! free AV... which has had (supposedly) significant updates since the last time it was reviewed by MaxPC and basically called 'slow but effective'. Has it improved? Very disappointed in its omission ... I would rather see MaxPC dump other "features" like WebCam reviews and give a truly complete and authoritative treatment to a real AV roundup instead of just throwing darts at 10. Heck, dedicate an entire issue to it, cuz it IS that important...
maseone
June 02, 2011 at 10:20pm
So, I'm not here to rag on the OP 3 months after the fact. I'm just curious why Comodo gets such a bad rap in pretty much every review I've seen (outside of mpc as well). I've yet to see a valid reason in the explanation for such low scores or just out right not including the software in these type of reviews. It's free, the virus engine is just as good as kaspersky, the firewall is as good or better than any other, and the interface is logically laid out to give the most control with little fuss. When I see it get knocked for "poor interface" but then see Kaspersky (great engine, but the worst software wrapped around it I've ever seen for any software ever made in the hisotry of time) get a 9?? Again, not here to rag on the OP, just curious, what am I missing? Optional toolbars are annoying, but it's a free software product that is as good or better than any of the $50+/yr products.
I'd like to see a single reason why the (free) Comodo Firewall/AV used in conjunction with Windows Defender is any less effective and/or efficient than any product MPC gives an 8 or higher. Just one (a good one, come on you're killing me).
m1
squibbon
April 24, 2011 at 3:36pm
Of ESET, Kaspersky and Bitdefender (the top 3), which one came out in the tests as top dog?
schmoe
April 08, 2011 at 4:05pm
good lord, how do you include ClamWin(which everyone knows is cr@p) but you leave out Avast, Avira, and AVG!! got to be kidding me....my bet is you included ClamWin to make the other paid AV look better and Avast, Avira, and AVG weren't willing to buy ad space but hey, who knows...
ClamWin is for for USB sticks you dingbat...
jelenko
April 04, 2011 at 6:21pm
First, I'm amazed at all the whining about which AV app wasn't included.
But, I'm just as amazed at the lack of testing for actual protection.
The reviews all seemed to focus just on speed and user interface. Certainly those are important, but, you would think, the most important is how well the app actually does protect against the various types of malware.
Cage22
April 04, 2011 at 2:34pm
In the article, for MSE, you state, "boot penalty of just 10 seconds." But in the chart, you show boot as 0. Which is it?
J-Mac
April 04, 2011 at 6:21am
Why do you title the article "The Ultimate AV Guide" when it should be, how do some of last years compare to ones we have not seen before. I jumped in hoping I would find a nice guide I could link people to on my website but your article title is misleading and I dont see any real purpose to the article. Who cares how SOME of last years winners perform against SOME that you have not reviewed before? Honestly, what is the purpose of this article? It sure is NOT to help someone pick a good AV product.
Want some ideas for an article that could actually be useful? Heres a few:
1. Why does Norton make removing their product so hard that they have to distribute a removal tool?
2. The best performing FREE AV products
3. How do the free versions of Avast, Avira and AVG compare to the expensive versions of Norton and McAfee?
yackman01
March 27, 2011 at 7:40am
Ok this gets really annoying. Why have i NEVER seen a review on VIPRE antivirus or internet security? This is a great piece of software. There is a Vipre Rescue Tool too that i use when i am fixing computers for my business clients. Its affordable, light weight, and very user friendly.
wk
March 26, 2011 at 10:53pm
anyone review AV software should include most popular free AV comparing them to paid version in order to reach a conclusive result that may benefit users of both kind.
please in future reviews include AVAST, AVG, AVIRA and other great free AV.
thanks
BnB
March 26, 2011 at 9:03pm
I understand it's not possible to include everyone's favorites in a "Top 10" List; but no Avast or AVG?
I just lost my trust in your reviews, MaximumPC!
jproulx
March 24, 2011 at 10:19am
Look I use Grisoft's AVG, but I'm not a die hard fan. I'm a fan of information. What I don't understand is why you would not review a product you KNOW a lot of your readers are using. It's baffling to not cater to your reader base. I don't personally care if you say... "Wow AVG, can't believe how far you've fallen." but people use what they know. Human beings by and large stick with what's comfortable and familiar. So barring a bad review people are going to keep using what you've reviewed positively in the past UNLESS you say otherwise. Not reviewing products that you have reviewed year after year, even if it's just a footnote to say they now suck compared to these others, is I'm sorry.. a little ridiculous. Where's the AVG, Avast, and Kaperskys reviews? I could care less about Avast and Kap but I've been a reader of yours long enough (forever) to know that you must have TONS of readers using them as well.
Another odd thing... I was really intrigued by your MSE review as a free contender but then noticed in the chart, not the review, that it doesn't scan e-mails?? Um, wouldn't that be worth a note? Short on features seems a bit of an understatement in regards to that little nugget.
Justin
Paul Braden
March 22, 2011 at 8:17pm
Why in the world would you ignore AVG? The AVG Internet Security 2011 security suite continues to win awards! How about testing it against these losers next time? Too good for you?
RandyN
March 23, 2011 at 9:29am
Also not a reply (i.e., Add a Commnet not working for me either).
ClamWin AV, are you kidding? It doesn't even have an on-access/real-time scanner and is not used by many Windows users as their primary AV. I thought it was the "Top 10 Programs".
I read through the comments and replies and understand how you selected the field of AVs to test. My only question is why?
Doesn't it benefit your readers more to test the top 10 currently used AVs (and maybe throw in a couple less-commonly used AVs)? You should have included NOD32, AVG, AVAST, Avira, and KAV and tested them using the same methodology. This would give more informative and useful results then the current test.
I've been a MaximumPC reader and subscriber for many years but the logic behind some of your tests escapes me (and unfortunately so does their usefulness).
One final comment. These reviews are for your readers, correct? Deriding Norton because Aunt Agnes might have difficulty with the interface doesn't make sense. If Aunt Agnes is a MaximumPC reader, then she can probably handle Norton's interface easily.
TechLarry
March 23, 2011 at 6:22am
Not really a reply to Paul. The stupid Add A Comment button was busted...
Anywho...
How can the premier PC Magazine not include ESET's NOD32 in a test like this? It's the only AntiVirus/AntiSpyware written in Assembly code, is fast as hell, doesn't beat your system up, and is very effective.
As a hardcore gaming hardware magazine, I would think you guys would know this.
Paul_Lilly
March 23, 2011 at 7:45am
We included ESET Smart Security 4 (the company's full-fledged Internet security suite) in last year's roundup, and it did exceptonall well, scoring a 9 verdict. It would have made the cut in this year's roundup, since we set out to take 5 of the best from last year and pit them against 5 we've never before reviewed, but there hasn't been a major update to the program; it's stuck in version 4.
You can read our evaluation of ESET Smart Security 4 here.
emadgreek
March 22, 2011 at 11:16pm
Worst roundup ever. Seriously go to http://download.cnet.com/w indows/ and view what is being download and used. AVG, Avast, Malwarebytes, are all missing. Yes use some of the big companies like Norton and McAffee, but seriously who ever chose these products for comparison sucks. Wow and your podcasts are getting even worse lately. Might be time for a change in leadership. Maybe somebody who actually cares, and owns a PC. What the heck get off you Mac Books already.
I demand a redo!
galahadkoa
March 23, 2011 at 8:01am
I went to download BufferZone Pro only to find out it doesnt even support 64 bit systems....Very worthwhile program!
Mighty BOB!
March 22, 2011 at 6:41pm
Like a user far below this comment, I too was confused at the lack of Comodo, but then I actually went back and looked at the old article (Why that link is absent from this article I cannot fathom) and saw that they gave it a 6 for not looking pretty, for having an optional toolbar as part of installation, and for including links to buy more stuff. So I guess it makes sense that it wasn't included here. Not that I'm going to suddenly stop using it or anything.
vanyell1967@gma...
March 22, 2011 at 5:17pm
I rely on avast, Malwarebytes and ccleaner on my machine and I use Emsisoft for cleaning infected customer systems. Really surprised none of these were mentioned. Come on guys, give me a reason to renew my subscription!!
Demoman2k10
March 22, 2011 at 5:01pm
Ok so this isn't a complete list of the best out there. NO AVAST!, No AVG, No Malware Bytes... All 3 are very good at what they do. I find it very disconcerting that they do a better job than norton or mcAfee's at cleaning and are LESS invasive to a system. SAD that the article seems slanted in favor of the ESTABLISHED corporations rather than the BETTER products.
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
March 22, 2011 at 3:31pm
I have to say that leaving MalwareBytes Anti-Malware out of the roundup is a HUGE disservice to your readership. Add SUPERAntiSpyware to the list, too. Oh, and FireFox with the NoScript add-on.
Years ago, when I relied on Explorer, getting my browser hijacked was a regular occurance, thanks to the Active-X backdoors Microsoft has built in. I quickly lost count of how many times I ended up reinstalling Windows because of the crap Explorer let into my system.
Switching to FireFox was a good move, but adding No-Script has been a real blessing. While I have to pick through a list and allow various scripts the first time I visit a new site, I don't much mind the added inconvenience given the level of security I've gained. No-Script has protected me from nearly all Java-based attacks others have to fend off with resource-hogging antispyware tools.
Some crap still gets through on computers I don't use (wife, kids), but MalwareBytes AntiMalware and SUPERAntiSpyware have been able to clean those systems pretty well. When you get something really nasty, the kind of stuff that prevents your removal tools from accessing the web, you can download updates and install them manually in Safe Mode. Pretty cool.
eday_2010
March 23, 2011 at 4:33am
MalwareBytes Anti-Malware andSUPERAntiSpyware are NOT anti-virus programs. They are anti-malware and anti-spyware programs. They were only reviewing anti-virus programs. Why aren't you asking them to include SpyBot Search and Destroy too?
nclaughlin
March 22, 2011 at 2:57pm
Why wasn't Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware considered? McAfee let through a virus that I had to use malwarebytes to get rid of.
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
March 22, 2011 at 3:40pm
I used MalwareBytes Anti-Malware on the Conficker worm the other day.
thrawnis
March 22, 2011 at 2:40pm
Great article. This is a great guide to support the use of MSE for cheap computer users (like me). Please add Avast, AVG, and Avira as they are more popular than many of the programs you have listed. Also, could you include the engine and virus definition version numbers in each of the programs so we know how up-to-date these reviews are?
soccer1105
March 22, 2011 at 1:57pm
Yeah Paul Lilly, we get it, and we don't care. Quality products like AVG, Avast!, and Avira should still be on here. They are far better than some of these programs, and deserve to be reviewed as well.
MattyMattMatt
March 22, 2011 at 1:46pm
No Avira?
Giving Norton a 9 even though it itself behaves like malware?
Capper
March 22, 2011 at 8:02pm
I guess my sarcasm was lost on you. the same question was asked and answered about four times previously.
As to the overall comments...... I've fixed several systems over the last couple months using AVAST, AVG, Security Essentials, etc that were infected with various viruses and malware......no program is 100% safe nor 100% effective.....probably the best way to approach things is to not completely rely on any program totally and instead police yourself....be careful of those torrents, dont open those stupid email attachments...things like that. I realize that doesnt apply to all of you, but I'm sure it applies to enough of you, and people you know to be worth mentioning.
Thank you Mr Lilly for your time and effort on this article, well done.
Albin
March 22, 2011 at 1:25pm
I missed reviews of AVG and Avast, which are popular and often recommended by online forum junkies.
That said, I'm a confirmed user of Norton IS - the one misleading thing is the review is the price: big box stores routinely mark it down to about $25 after Xmas through January, and that's the time to have the subscription expire for renewal.
I know the historical complaints are well justified - because I used to get Norton bundled with my tax software I've used it since the late 1990s and certainly recall the days of bloat and resource demands, and that you were afraid to uninstall it because it ferreted itself so far into Windows. But the sea change took place in 2007 and it's been getting better, faster, and lighter on the RAM every year, and it uninstalls cleanly.
andresau
March 22, 2011 at 1:10pm
I have used a plethora of antivirus applications throughout the years. I liked MSE's review - I couldn't agree more with the findings. I would personally like to see how Avast! stacks up to the competition. Wonderful article, keep up the great work!
lunchbox73
March 22, 2011 at 12:12pm
I like MS Security Essentials. I've had it running on all 4 computers in my house since day one. Other than being behind our router firewall I don't use any other security measures and I've never had a problem - even with 2 teen sons. Making sure everything is up to date is vital and it probably doesn't hurt using parental control software for the kids as that will block some seedy web sites as well.
I run MBAM from time to time and it never finds anything scarrier than a tracking cookie here and there.
FrancesTheMute
March 22, 2011 at 11:17am
Been using MSE for over a year now and for now I'm sticking with it. Gets the job done and is free, can't really ask for more than that.
SevWarfare
March 22, 2011 at 11:10am
BitDefender does have Identity Control. Found under Privacy Control. Red mark for you. Kaspersky was already mentioned, but where is Comodo Internet Security?
blindhorizon
March 22, 2011 at 10:56am
why is not Eset in here as well, last time Kaspersky and eset ranked on the top of the list last time MaxPc did it...did they not make the cut or just not get reviewd to see if they would kick all the other ones asses.
Paul_Lilly
March 22, 2011 at 11:02am
From the introduction:
"To find out, we’re pitting the 2011 versions of last year’s top five performing AV applications against five security suites we’ve never before reviewed. The two exceptions are ESET Smart Security, which hasn’t been overhauled since our last roundup, and Kaspersky Internet Security 2011, which we already evaluated and gave a 9 verdict / Kick Ass award to for its rich (and useful) feature-set and insane level of protection."
kiaghi7
March 22, 2011 at 2:21pm
You're effectively saying:
'Well last year's champs weren't torn down to the ground and rebuilt for this competition, so their performance and quality is irrelevant for sake of comparison...'
Well no, it's not, even "last year's" technology is more than sufficient to make at the very least a mention in comparison to the newer programs particularly since they are quite literally the top two in quality and performance. Add to that, ESET 3 has since been ESET 4, so your assertion that it hasn't been overhauled is simply incorrect.
It was an omission, for whatever reason, it was simply an omission... And to the detriment of your readers who could be taking this information as motivational in choosing a security software for their platform.
You routinely hearken back to prior reviews of things like heat sinks and so forth as comparison for the newer thing, even though your information is dubious in that as well, the 212+ has been roundly trounced in countless tests by the Noctua NH-D14, but apparently in your testing it was tied and even supposedly inferior (a HIGHLY suspect result to say the least) althought how your testing arrived at that is neigh unfathomable.
Regardless the 212+ is a fine heat sink, and well worth comparisons as a base-line, particularly in its price point, so it is constantly used as the high-water mark to compare other new heat sinks to, even though it's pretty long in the tooth by computer tech standards of time... So why the admitted omission of security programs hardly a year old at this point simply because they haven't needed to be reworked.
If anything that should speak volumes for how well they worked last year, that everyone else had to tear-down and rebuild to compete with the best programs for the job because they did it right to begin with. To use the preposterous criteria of not completely overhauling what is working perfectly fine to begin with as a reason to not even compare them is laughable and smacks of EXCEEDINGLY questionable judgment.
Paul_Lilly
March 22, 2011 at 6:45pm
Kiaghi7, we did mention Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 in this year's roundup, making clear that it was previously evaluated and earned a 9/Kick Ass rating (if you'd like to read the review, you can find it here). It's the same overall product now as it was 4 months ago, and our opinion of Kaspersky hasn't changed since then. Additionally, in the Zone Alarm review, which uses Kaspersky's antivirus engine, we pointed out that "Kaspersky's scan engine continues to earn high marks from independent testing labs," as well as sprinkled in some other praise for Kaspersky.
Regarding ESET, we evaluated ESET 4 in last year's roundup, not ESET 3, and there has not been a major update since then (if you'd like to read that review, you can find it here).
Also keep in mind that we'll be running reviews of AV software not included in this year's roundup in future issues of the magazine, just as we had done before.
OldCinco
March 23, 2011 at 1:02am
Sure hope you include Vipre Premium in your upcoming tests. You've almost completely ignored it in all your reviews. Why?
ipatinga
March 22, 2011 at 10:27am
Where is Kaspersky Internet Security?
I used to work with Norton (the 2009 was good, but did not like the interface nor the annoying warning to "make a Norton account")... them McAfee (2010 and 2011, did not like the interface nor the lack of some options, plus I got a virus), but Kaspersky has been my choice since 2009 (very good at protection and I like the menus and interface... and the price for the 3 year 3 computer... got it for half my family and start telling my friends about it(this also saved me a couple "tech" visits since virus and threats are not a problem now).
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: HUD-Sporting "Google Glasses" May Hit Streets This Year http://t.co/TDXjJowZ3 hours 2 min ago
- maximumpc: Nvidia Releases WHQL-Certified 295.73 GeForce Drivers http://t.co/NVMWruHO4 hours 36 min ago
- maximumpc: http://t.co/BVVfRA3B4 hours 36 min ago
