Which one do you recommend?

  • Avast Free

  • Windows Defender

Results are only viewable after voting.

Amelith Nargothrond

Level 12
Verified
I don't have much of an experience with Avast (to help you decide), but from a logical point of view, why would a third party AV bother to release a product which is worse than another one built-in the very OS they are trying to protect? I would say try them both for a few weeks, pay attention to what each of them does, and decide afterwards.
 

Rengar

Level 16
Avast is better than WD in all terms. BB , sandbox, good signatures, and the most important Hadened Mode. But if you use common sence you can live with WD and be safe as its very good for basic protection. Also with WD you can run some anti-malware like ZAM for even more protection. So i choose WD :)
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
You can use both, if you use Avast in Passive Mode (no real-time), or Windows Defender's Limited Periodic Scanning (no real-time). Only use ONE in real-time.

Guaranteed users will say Avast is better than Windows Defender, but it is baseline protection for Windows. If you're satisfied with the default, keep it. Otherwise install Avast Free Antivirus with a custom installation to rid of bloatware, but beware of the Upsell Notifications and Placeholder icons.

Both are very good.
 
Last edited:

brod56

Level 15
Verified
Before i used Avast on Windows 7. But today i upgraded my system to Windows 10. I am very undecided that which one i must use on Windows 10. Is Windows Defender enough to protect my computer?

Sorry for my english.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
Heyye.​
It depends on your needs.
Are you an average user? Then WD+ublock/Adguard is more than enough for a light, nice protection.
Are you a heavy gamer, happy clicker or installer? Then Avast (Hardened Mode) will be your choice :)
Do not forget to combo with Zemana for periodic manual scans.
 

FedericoCed

New Member
Before i used Avast on Windows 7. But today i upgraded my system to Windows 10. I am very undecided that which one i must use on Windows 10. Is Windows Defender enough to protect my computer?

Sorry for my english.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
Heyye.​
I think that Avast is better the Wind Defender
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heyye

Evjl's Rain

Level 43
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Is that a joke?
it's not a joke :)
WD is one of the heaviest AVs I have ever used. I'm paranoid about system performance so if there is any slight change in the performance I can detect it. WD caused my laptop fan to work harder with higher HDD activity than avast

Something to consider (but not to take as a definitive proof of anything since it's not a comparison):

Video Review - [Juan Diaz] Avast Free Antivirus (Hardened Mode) vs Ransomware

Why i think this is something to be considered: the thing got detected, but wasn't stopped, although the message from Avast was that it was stopped.
I think after my other post in this video thread, your comment is not true anymore :)
any AV have bypasses even the best one. Better AVs are more difficult to bypass but it's not impossible
Avast is still one of the best on the market
 

Amelith Nargothrond

Level 12
Verified
I think after my other post in this video thread, your comment is not true anymore :)
any AV have bypasses even the best one. Better AVs are more difficult to bypass but it's not impossible
Avast is still one of the best on the market
It's a bypass. We don't know for sure why, correct? As far as i can see from the video, it's the wscript process (or cmd) doing the encryption, because the encrypting code might be embedded in the js, almost like RAA. Would be an interesting test to try the exact same ransomware without a network connection. You're the expert, i might be wrong, please care to comment.

This is why i mentioned that this is to be considered, but not to make any decisions based only on this video :) An AV is so much more than this video can show. Maybe WD would have stopped this ransomware strain (all the presumably 3 payloads or the js itself), maybe not, we don't (yet) know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Robbie and Heyye

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
I cannot recommend Avast 2017 because it blocks Macrium Reflect automated backup jobs. That's just unforgivable.

Windows Defender will not interfere with the proper functioning of your OS and software. That's a very big plus.

WD will only slow down your system in this situation: you want to open a folder that contains a lot of executable files that have unique icons. For instance, your download folder. In that situation, Windows Defender will be slow at displaying the icons.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 43
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
It's a bypass. We don't know for sure why, correct? As far as i can see from the video, it's the wscript process doing the encryption, because the encrypting code might be embedded in the js, almost like RAA. Would be an interesting test to try the exact same ransomware without a network connection. You're the expert, i might be wrong, please care to comment.

This is why i mentioned that this is to be considered, but not to make any decisions based only on this video :) An AV is so much more than this video can show. Maybe WD would have stopped this ransomware strain (all the presumably 3 payloads or the js itself), maybe not, we don't (yet) know.
I'm not an expert, just a regular user :)
In malware hub test with WD only, ransomwares encrypted files quite frequently while avast only failed in some occasions with the default settings. This is what I can tell you

wscript doesn't encrypt the system. The downloaded payloads (.exe) do. You can have wscript running for the whole day but if it cannot download .exe, it's unlikely to anything significant unless there is a file-less attack

WD can block these or may be not due to signatures and cloud. WD almost has no behavioral blocker so there are more chance to get infections than avast, although BB is not perfect, but it's proven to be effective

people should use WD if they can use other built-in windows components (firewall, UAC, smartsceen, SUA) but if they ignore something, WD is pretty weak
 

Amelith Nargothrond

Level 12
Verified
I'm not an expert, just a regular user :)
In malware hub test with WD only, ransomwares encrypted files quite frequently while avast only failed in some occasions with the default settings. This is what I can tell you

wscript doesn't encrypt the system. The downloaded payloads (.exe) do. You can have wscript running for the whole day but if it cannot download .exe, it's unlikely to anything significant unless there is a file-less attack

WD can block these or may be not due to signatures and cloud. WD almost has no behavioral blocker so there are more chance to get infections than avast, although BB is not perfect, but it's proven to be effective

people should use WD if they can use other built-in windows components (firewall, UAC, smartsceen, SUA) but if they ignore something, WD is pretty weak
What about obfuscated executables embedded in the js? This is exactly RAA. It downloads other malware, but if it can't download, it still encrypts, executing the embedded executable. My point is, from this video, you cannot know for sure that is was a third payload downloaded from the internet that did the encryption. And if was embedded in the js, that's even worse, it's a static file that should have been detected. If this is the case, maybe the AV installed didn't got an update with the signature for this particular ransomware, or they didn't got the chance to build one (0-day variant).

Anyway, Avast is good, WD is good. I would probably choose Avast, it has to be at least a little bit better, why else would they release another free AV while WD is around? :)

Oh sorry, probably would choose Avast IF i would not be a Macrium user on that particular PC (at this moment) :D
 
Last edited by a moderator: