Battle 2017: Avast Free vs Windows Defender (Windows 10)

Heyye

Level 1
Thread author
Feb 18, 2016
13
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.​
 

Amelith Nargothrond

Level 12
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 22, 2017
587
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 17
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jan 6, 2017
835
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 :)
 

Ink

Administrator
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Jan 8, 2011
22,361
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
Top Poster
Well-known
Feb 13, 2017
737
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
Feb 19, 2017
1
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 47
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,684
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
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 22, 2017
587
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: RoboMan and Heyye

shmu26

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Jul 3, 2015
8,150
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 47
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,684
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
Top Poster
Well-known
Mar 22, 2017
587
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:

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top