New Tests Reveal the Best Antivirus Solution for Windows 7

[Kumaran]

Content source

http://news.softpedia.com/news/new-tests-reveal-the-best-antivirus-solution-for-windows-7-492760.shtml

AV-TEST has conducted a new in-depth research of antivirus products currently on the market to determine the apps with the highest level of protection, performance, and usability for Windows 7 home and corporate users.

The results aren’t surprising at all: Bitdefender, McAfee, and Kaspersky are still leading the charts, while Microsoft and QuickHeal are at the opposite pole of the charts. Despite the fact that Windows 10 is already on the market, and Windows 8 has been available since 2012, Windows 7 continues to be the world’s number one desktop operating system, so AV-TEST’s decision to evaluate security solutions developed for this OS version isn’t at all surprising.

Best antivirus software for home users

Right now, Bitdefender’s antivirus is the number one security solution on the market, having obtained the maximum of 6 points in each protection, performance, and usability tests. McAfee is the runner-up with 6 points for protection, 5.5 points for performance, and 6 points for usability, while Kaspersky comes third with 5.5, 6, and 6 points, respectively.

Avira is the best-rated free antivirus product and the fourth in the charts, with 6 points for protection, 5 for performance, and 6 for usability.

Microsoft and QuickHeal scored the worst and received only 3, 5, and 6 points and 4.5, 3, and 5.5 points, respectively for the very same categories. But in the case of Microsoft, it scored the biggest improvements, increasing from 9.5 points in the last tests to 14 points this time.

As far as corporate products are concerned, Trend Micro is said to provide the best virus protection or Windows 7, with a maximum of 6 points in every test performance by the institute. Bitdefender and McAfee are the runner-ups with 5.5 points in the performance category.

The last apps in the charts are Microsoft’s, with 2.5 points for protection, 5 points for performance, and 6 points for usability, and Seqrite’s with 4 points, 2.5 points, and 5.5 points, respectively. Read more

 

[Kuttz]

McAfee had better performance than Avira Free ?? and how ESET can be this low ?? Dubious

 

[OokamiCreed]

McAfee had better performance than Avira Free ?? Dubious

I've never been able to make sense of the performance tests. Every configuration makes the performance test much different on each system. I guess "professional" grade AV testers don't realize this... However in McAfee vs. Avira.. Avira is far lighter. I don't think it would matter what system you have. lol McAfee is just something else.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Test...test...test...just take them as informations not as confirmations.

 

[Kuttz]

I've never been able to make sense of the performance tests. Every configuration makes the performance test much different on each system.

Their test methodology with performance test is that they uses the same configuration PC to test all Anti Virus softwares they conduct to test. So that performance impact can be compared correctly. But here their entire test results seems dubious in nature.

 

[OokamiCreed]

Their test methodology with performance test is that they uses the same configuration PC to test all Anti Virus softwares they conduct to test. So that performance difference can be compared correctly. But here their entire test results seems dubious in nature.

I understand this but they really should be able to test with multiple configurations then either show them separately and list the details, or use the average of each as the final score which is what is done for accuracy in statistics. There is also the AMD/Intel CPU thing. Some AVs don't play nice in performance with certain brand name processors. Either way, I agree that these test are dubious. I've always conducted my own test with host (performance) and VM (prevention). Sometimes my results match these ones, but most of the time they are off. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.

 

[Moose]

Key word is protection! Good luck!

 

[Amiga500]

I take these tests with a big pinch of salt.
How can they possibly produce accurate results without testing on every single computer configuration on earth.?
It is nonsense and more likely to be financially motivated above all else.
A testing organisation just produces these results out of thin air and we the observing public just consume it as a statement of fact.
Where for example is it stated on what computers and which set of malware samples were used.?
preposterous.
How do we actually know they were tested at all as there is no specific information provided.
Money makes the world go round.(apparently) and i can imagine the likes of kaspersky and the other "high ranking" av companies have dipped their hands into their pockets to sway the results.

 

[frogboy]

Your click matters more than anything else.

 

[Khairul]

Guys2 its all about business, but as in nature, its hard to tell which the best and which are not. The samples they collecting, the hardware specs they are using cannot match the real world as they have a certain limitation.

The malware samples they collected, it might can be said that it doesnt represent the world, but its represent their reachable area. For example, in Malaysia, as far as i acknowledge my university computer keep being infected by many malware even though they are using trend micro office scan. The widely spread Wauchos and Bundpill are more likely to be missed by this av.

In other case, ESET does show good performance on my PC and detected most of the virus that missed by avira kaspersky bitdefender and trend micro.

So what im saying is that, it my vary from places to country depending on which country they able to get the malware from. Anyway, its still informative and quite helping in the business.

 

[omidomi]

Hahaha any one accept bitdefender and Mcaffe have better performance than eset and avira?!

 

[Solarquest]

I look most at protection, unless performance is very low.
What I cannot believe, and never did, is how so many AVs manage to get a perfect score (in different labs test)!
Another point is why they test with a so little amount of malwares.
Some years ago(almost a decade)at least they were testing 300k, 500k malwares.
Considering 200k to 300k new malwares are detected every day, why do they use only few thousand?
How do they pick/ choose these few samples?
Why don't they test with the samples found the last week/ month?
That would be way more realistic and true..............and time consuming ... and expensive too, I know....but would show a real picture.
If I remember right, few years ago I read Av-test had a collection of more than 100M malwares! They could use it for testing sometime...at least for signature and heuristic testing.

 

[Paul B.]

I'm not surprised to see Panda up there. Most of my machines are netbooks or value laptops, and performance is crucial. Panda has been the best on resource usage, especially considering it enables nuking Windows Defender. I haven't installed Avira, but one unit that came in had it and I wasn't impressed at all.

Hardware configuration is going to have a whole lot to do with results, at least toward the low end of the spectrum. I can tell you this: McAfee on anything not very strong is like putting a bolder into a wheelbarrow.

 

[Willams]

I disagree with the results of the test. However, ok , rarely agree with test results.

 

[Blackhawk]

I just repaired a computer that was infected (qwave.dll - Trojan Win32 Generic) that was causing very high CPU usage. That computer had Eset as it's AV. Eset could detect the trojan, but could not remove it. I had to use Kaspersky to remove it. Kaspersky had no problem with removal while Eset did. My opinions are based on my personal experience over the years and IME, Kaspersky, Avira, and Bitdefender are the best overall and are consistent. I like Avira for low impact and great prevention/detection. I like Kaspersky for great prevention/detection AND excellent removal ability. Kaspersky however IME does slow the computer down more than others... I don't care what tests say it's low impact.

 

[Janl92l]

comodo usability 5,5? hell no its like 1-2. didnt read much more after i read this,lol. and all the other stats are just on the specific systems and the samples they use. u can simple not "trust" this tests. Sure,they maybe be true but that says nothing.