- Dec 20, 2014
- 619
Should I install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware beside Emsisoft Anti-Malware for extra protection? Will it slow down my computer?
Should I install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware beside Emsisoft Anti-Malware?
- Thread starter Maxxx58
- Start date
- Status
- Feb 23, 2014
- 3,317
- Dec 20, 2014
- 619
- Dec 18, 2014
- 266
I have installed the EIS and MBAM as an additional scanner. I do not see a greater load on the computer.
- Dec 20, 2014
- 619
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,460
- Jun 22, 2013
- 632
I have used Malwarebytes for years along side different Av's, I have never had a conflict or noticed any system slowdown. Malwarebytes is meant to run with other security products and currently I am running it with Emsisoft Anti-Malware and my system runs perfectly.
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
It will not caused the problem but its better to make Emsisoft do the job. 
I don't think its a good idea. Emsisoft is already Bitdefender + its own in-house antivirus, and with a top notch behaviour blocker added into the mix. I don't see a need for Malwarebytes, even if your computer has the neccessary resources to run it.
- Jun 12, 2014
- 314
MBAM Pro can be a useful addition for users who are often victims of potentially unwanted applications and don't use a product which already detects these.
Yet EAM is one of the best when it comes to detect them and I think their implementation is also better. A lot of legitimate software comes bundled with potentially unwanted content and some solutions flag the whole package as malicious, whereas EAM will only detect and block the installation of the PUP and allow the legitimate content. Though I am not sure how Malwarebytes behaves and if it flags the whole package.
In terms of actual zero-day malware EAM's behavior blocker has a clear advantage over MBAM which only uses signatures.
Another factor: if I were to use EAM, I would set its file guard to scan only on execution, for performance reasons without decreasing the protection (@Fabian Wosar uses it like this, IIRC). Since MBAM Pro is an on-execution scanner as well, both file-guards could conflict with each other when they both detect malware on execution.
Hence I would refrain from using both together and I don't think it's necessary.
Yet EAM is one of the best when it comes to detect them and I think their implementation is also better. A lot of legitimate software comes bundled with potentially unwanted content and some solutions flag the whole package as malicious, whereas EAM will only detect and block the installation of the PUP and allow the legitimate content. Though I am not sure how Malwarebytes behaves and if it flags the whole package.
In terms of actual zero-day malware EAM's behavior blocker has a clear advantage over MBAM which only uses signatures.
Another factor: if I were to use EAM, I would set its file guard to scan only on execution, for performance reasons without decreasing the protection (@Fabian Wosar uses it like this, IIRC). Since MBAM Pro is an on-execution scanner as well, both file-guards could conflict with each other when they both detect malware on execution.
Hence I would refrain from using both together and I don't think it's necessary.
When nothing is perfect, why not have a second opinion with MBAM.
- Oct 23, 2012
- 12,527
I agree with EAM as your real time protection and using MBAM as an on demand scanner.
- Dec 20, 2014
- 619
- Jun 10, 2014
- 316
I've used both for a long time (until recently, just got Windows 7 Firewall atm...). Having MBAM as an on-demand and EAM as an active is fine. I've noticed on malware tests on this forum that the files EAM misses, MBAM picks up and vice versa. They are a decent one-two punch again infections, but hey... so are browsing habits
One example is file-sharing applications. EAM doesn't kick up a fuss at all, but MBAM brings up alerts for various IPs that are in the swarm, so always good to run MBAM with "Malicious Website Blocking" enabled while P2P'ing. There is no need for premium MBAM since it will be used as a secondary protector.
One example is file-sharing applications. EAM doesn't kick up a fuss at all, but MBAM brings up alerts for various IPs that are in the swarm, so always good to run MBAM with "Malicious Website Blocking" enabled while P2P'ing. There is no need for premium MBAM since it will be used as a secondary protector.
- Dec 20, 2014
- 619
Thanks for your suggestionI've used both for a long time (until recently, just got Windows 7 Firewall atm...). Having MBAM as an on-demand and EAM as an active is fine. I've noticed on malware tests on this forum that the files EAM misses, MBAM picks up and vice versa. They are a decent one-two punch again infections, but hey... so are browsing habits
One example is file-sharing applications. EAM doesn't kick up a fuss at all, but MBAM brings up alerts for various IPs that are in the swarm, so always good to run MBAM with "Malicious Website Blocking" enabled while P2P'ing. There is no need for premium MBAM since it will be used as a secondary protector.
- Nov 25, 2014
- 402
but website protection is not available in free version?I've used both for a long time (until recently, just got Windows 7 Firewall atm...). Having MBAM as an on-demand and EAM as an active is fine. I've noticed on malware tests on this forum that the files EAM misses, MBAM picks up and vice versa. They are a decent one-two punch again infections, but hey... so are browsing habits
One example is file-sharing applications. EAM doesn't kick up a fuss at all, but MBAM brings up alerts for various IPs that are in the swarm, so always good to run MBAM with "Malicious Website Blocking" enabled while P2P'ing. There is no need for premium MBAM since it will be used as a secondary protector.
- Status
Similar threads
