Print
Panda Internet Security 2011
Panda holds a ton of promise, and if it weren’t for a few niggling issues, we’d anoint it our favorite security suite. But there are some things that just can’t be ignored, like the same persistent pop-ups we complained about in the 2010 release. It started from the get-go with Panda reminding us that we still needed to activate the program (even though we hadn’t previously been prompted). Shortly after, another pop-up appeared imploring us to register, something that is usually optional. In this case, our choices were to go ahead and register or be reminded at a future date (one day, one week, or one month), with no option to disregard it forever. Bad Panda!
Panda does its due diligence in alerting you to potential threats, but it overreacts to your home network, at least at first. Less savvy computer users may end up inadvertently blocking file shares, thinking that the pop-up represents a real danger when in fact it doesn’t.
Panda’s new UI now includes a virtual keyboard as an added precaution against keyloggers.
Our other issue is with Panda’s pokey scan engine. Panda subjects certain files to its Collective Intelligence database in the cloud, and a company representative warned us this would slow down scanning. It did, but the real problem is with Panda’s poor file-caching algorithm, which shaved only 26 seconds off a second system sweep that wasn’t that fast to begin with.
That’s what we don’t like about Panda, but there are plenty of redeeming qualities. We were told to expect improved boot times over time, and that’s what we saw. Initially, Panda added 15 seconds to startup, but after several reboots, Panda settled down to five seconds over a clean install. We also dig the repainted UI. It’s mostly an aesthetic change from last year’s version, but still packed with features—like a home network manager, ID theft protection, remote access, and more—all thoughtfully arranged.
When we fed Panda our malware samples, it chewed them up like a real panda bear chomps on bamboo. It also zipped through AV-Test.org’s much larger collection of malware, scoring higher than the industry average in each of four virus categories. And as an added layer of protection, Panda now includes a virtual keyboard, in case you’re paranoid about keyloggers.
Panda’s not the fastest security suite, nor is it always well behaved, at least at first. But if you can overlook its flaws, it will protect your system unconditionally.
Virtual keyboard; checks the cloud for updated threats.
Poor file caching and too many alerts.
$60 (1 year, 3 PCs), www.pandasecurity.com
BitDefender flies in the face of conventional wisdom in more ways than one. Like most security suites, BIS runs the risk of spreading itself too thin by combining antivirus, antispyware, antiphishing, a firewall, parental controls, antispam, and more into a single package. That’s a challenge in and of itself, but BitDefender also attempts to cater to computer users of all skill levels, whether you consider yourself a beginner, intermediate, or expert. A tough challenge, but BitDefender proves up to the task.
Last year’s version of BitDefender also included different layouts to choose from, but they weren’t as slick or user friendly as they are now.
BitDefender prompts you to choose your level of expertise during installation, with each option sporting a different dashboard. You’re given a glimpse of each UI along with a short explanation before you commit, but can also select a different layout if you later change your mind. What’s great about this is that you can slap the Basic View on your parents’ rig and not have to worry about them inadvertently pushing a button they shouldn’t, and use the Intermediate or Expert layout on your own machine. The Intermediate UI is a step up from Basic in that you can customize the dashboard with up to 14 scrollable icons (Basic has three), while the Expert layout throws everything plus the kitchen sink and all the plumbing at you.
None of this would matter if BitDefender went belly up the first time you encountered a virus, but in our testing, it stood tall. It also zipped through our test bed’s hard drive like it was late for a date, reducing a little more than a six-minute scan to less than two minutes the second time around. There’s even a vulnerability scan that combs your system looking for unpatched software, missing Windows updates, and weak passwords.
Last year we concluded that “we’d always know we settled” with Bit-Defender, and now we’re wondering why we’d settle for anything else.
Suitable for all skill levels; supersonic scan speed.
No virtual keyboard.
$50 (1 year, 3 PCs), www.bitdefender.com
It’s hard not to look a gift horse in the mouth when you’re told it’s a potential thoroughbred capable of racing in the Kentucky Derby, but later find out it’s limping on two legs short of a set and isn’t even fit for making glue. That’s what we think about ClamWin, a free, open-source antivirus program that comes saddled with “gotchas.”
If ClamWin finds a virus, it doesn’t actually eradicate it unless you change the default setting from “Report Only” to “Remove” or “Move to Quarantine Folder.”
The main problem with ClamWin is it doesn’t offer any kind of real-time protection. It’s strictly an on-demand scanner, so your only chance of avoiding infection is to either manually inspect every file you download, or set up a rigorous automated scan schedule. But even that’s a chore, because you have to configure a separate schedule for every drive/partition in your system. And it doesn’t help matters that ClamWin’s scan engine moves at a snail’s pace. Oh, and it won’t bother analyzing files larger than 100MB unless you change the default setting, nor is it configured to actually delete or even quarantine malware by default.
Actually, we should be careful of using the term “malware.” ClamWin cowers under the blanket when you surf the web, leaving you susceptible to spyware, phishing attacks, browser hijacks, adware, worms, and anything else that requires a real-time scanner. And despite the developer’s claims that “you will be as safe as with a commercial antivirus” so long as you scan suspicious files before opening them, ClamWin gave a handful of our virus samples a clean bill of health. Grrr!
If you insist on using ClamWin, if only to support the open-source community, supplement it with Clam Sentinel (free, http://bit.ly/fayEdZ), an add-on that sits in the system tray and offers basic real-time scanning. You also better be rocking Windows Defender or some other antispyware program so you’re not naked on the web.
It's free.
No on-access scanning; doesn’t protect against web-based threats; requires too much fiddling.
Free, www.clamwin.com
Sharing the spotlight with ZA’s well-known firewall is Kaspersky’s integrated scan engine. Kaspersky earned a 9 verdict and a Kick Ass award last year, and in our eyes, pairing its scan engine with ZA’s firewall is like hiring Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee as your personal bodyguards. If only they had come dressed for the job.
ZoneAlarm does a fantastic job managing its two-way firewall, which offers up a boatload of customizations for networking ninjas.
Getting acquainted with the text-heavy UI takes a little work. The main window consists of a center panel outlining the status of the firewall, antivirus/antispyware, antiphishing, and browser security modules. This is flanked by a column of options on the left-hand side and a right-justified panel housing additional services, each of which redirects you to a web page to download and configure. It’s not the worst interface in the world, nor is it particularly swank. To perform anything other than a Quick Scan, for example, you have to drill into the antivirus menu, select Advanced Options, highlight Scan Modes under Virus Management, and then select a new default option, which applies to both manual and scheduled scans.
The integration of ZoneAlarm’s ForceField software adds an additional layer of security while cruising the web, but only if you’re driving IE or Firefox. If you are, ZA will scan every download before it touches your desktop, as well as give you the option of loading your browser in a virtual filesystem. Doing so redirects unsolicited downloads away from the OS and encrypts keystrokes, effectively jamming keyloggers. Huzzah!
All this protection adds up to a slightly heavy package. PCMark performance took a hit, and boot times jumped all over the place, finally averaging plus-six seconds (compared to a clean install), but occasionally would take much longer.
We found downloading updates a sometimes laborious waiting game, though this is only a potential problem if you have reason to check for updated definitions rather than let ZA do it for you. As malware detection goes, Check Point’s decision to integrate Kaspersky predictably turned out to be a good one, though it’s not as hurried as the fastest-performing scanners.
ZoneAlarm caught our entire collection of malware, and Kaspersky’s antivirus engine continues to earn high marks from independent testing labs.
It’s too bad ZA discriminates against Chrome, which is quickly picking up market share. And we wish it were a little more nimble. Otherwise, the pairing of a powerful firewall along with one of the best AV scan engines is a winning combination.
Top-notch firewall and Kaspersky scan engine is a potent one-two combo.
Browser protection doesn’t extend to Chrome; text-heavy UI.
$60, (1 year, 3PCs), www.zonealarm.com
When you first install BullGuard, you’re prompted to select a notification level. One of the two choices clamps a muzzle on BullGuard, stifling alerts the program can figure out on its own. The other promises more notifications so you’ll always know what the mutt is up to. We say mutt because BullGuard is another security suite that builds on top of someone else’s scan engine. We saw this with ZoneAlarm, which chose to go with Kaspersky, while BullGuard fetched BitDefender’s scan engine, another solid choice.
Don’t pay any attention to BullGuard’s password strength meter, which gives all eight-character passwords a maximum strength rating.
Initially, however, we feared BullGuard’s bark would be worse than its bite. During the final stage of installation, you’re asked to create a username and password. The password shows up in plain view unless you uncheck the “Show password” box, but more disconcerting is the so-called “strength meter.” All this does is evaluate how many characters you’ve entered. We typed “Password” and registered a full five bars on the strength meter, even though that’s arguably the weakest eight-character password you could possibly choose. It’s a minor gripe, but the feature could give greenhorn users a false sense of security.
Surfing the web was another story. BullGuard went into attack mode and sank its teeth into malicious downloads, a credit to its behavioral-based scanning. And when we chucked our own collection of malware onto the desktop, we might as well have thrown BullGuard a meaty bone, because the outcome was the same.
We paid a heavy price for all this protection, and we’re not talking about skrilla. Startup time never seemed to settle down after several reboots, taking an additional 32 seconds over a clean install. BullGuard was one of the few AV programs to noticeably affect file transfers, and the low PCMark score is a concern. These issues drag down an otherwise well-trained security companion.
Excellent behavioral-based scanning; customizable alerts.
Slows down system performance.
$60 (1 year, 3 PCs), www.bullguard.com
Comments are closed on this article
mikebo
July 02, 2011 at 12:28pm
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 11:20pm
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 4:36pm
Of ESET, Kaspersky and Bitdefender (the top 3), which one came out in the tests as top dog?
schmoe
April 08, 2011 at 5:05pm
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 7:21pm
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 3:34pm
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 7:21am
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 8:40am
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 11:53pm
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 10:03pm
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 11:19am
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 9:17pm
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 10:29am
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 7:22am
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 8:45am
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 23, 2011 at 12:16am
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 9:01am
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 7:41pm
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 6:17pm
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 6:01pm
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 4:31pm
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 5:33am
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 3:57pm
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 4:40pm
I used MalwareBytes Anti-Malware on the Conficker worm the other day.
thrawnis
March 22, 2011 at 3:40pm
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 2:57pm
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 2:46pm
No Avira?
Giving Norton a 9 even though it itself behaves like malware?
Capper
March 22, 2011 at 9:02pm
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 2:25pm
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 2:10pm
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 1:12pm
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 12:17pm
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 12:10pm
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 11:56am
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 12:02pm
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 3:21pm
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 7:45pm
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 2:02am
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 11:27am
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).
