Advice Request AdGuard for Windows vs uBo

Please provide comments and solutions that are helpful to the author of this topic.

AdGuard for Windows vs uBlock Origin

  • AdGuard for Windows

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • uBlock Origin

    Votes: 16 64.0%

  • Total voters
    25

n8chavez

Level 16
Thread author
Well-known
Feb 26, 2021
785
I understand there are fundamental differences between the two, AG can filter any app on the system whereas uBo can only function in a browser. However, beyond that, uBo seems more poweerful to me simply because it has an advanced mode that can block site connections and AdGuard for Windows does not. That being the case, wouldn't uBo be preferable, since it offers unmatched granularity? Or is there something I'm missing? I'm trying to determine which I should run.
 

Azure

Level 28
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Oct 23, 2014
1,712
Really depends.

This kind of sites, users tend to go for options like uBlock because it allows more tweaking.

However at some point people can get tired of that and might with the option that is more set and forget.

since it offers unmatched granularity?

While this is viewed as something good. What some people should be asking is “is this necessary for me?”

if you believe it is, then go with uBlock
 

DJ Panda

Level 30
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Aug 30, 2015
1,928
I currently use AdGuard as I jumped on a lifetime multi device license with them. Mostly because a system wide blocker for my cellphone. Otherwise, UBlock Origin would be my other option for sure. :)
 

n8chavez

Level 16
Thread author
Well-known
Feb 26, 2021
785
I currently use AdGuard as I jumped on a lifetime multi device license with them. Mostly because a system wide blocker for my cellphone. Otherwise, UBlock Origin would be my other option for sure. :)

I am in the exact situation. I bought a lifetime license from stacksocial, one for PC and the other for my phone. But I've since replaced it with uBo on my PC and am using nextdns on my android. I like AdGuard, but to me uBo + NextDNS just seems better, given uBo's advanced mode.
 

JasonUK

Level 5
Apr 14, 2020
232
I prefer the simplicity of AdGuard for Windows ~ no more setting extension rules for multiple browsers, worrying about Manifest v3 and it can act as a DNS client if you don't want to change system-wide settings too. I've never found anything that I need an adblocker to do that AdGuard can't but perhaps I'm less fussy than others on that score?
 

silversurfer

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Aug 17, 2014
10,057
Another valid point worth to mention: HTTPS filtering by Adguard for Windows.

uBlock Origin or other adblocker browser extensions/addons haven't this kind of disadvantage, although may doesn't work anymore same way in new Manifest 3, but there are still options to use DNS for this purpose like Adguard DNS or more advanced service NextDNS.
 

SeriousHoax

Level 47
Well-known
Mar 16, 2019
3,630
A major downside for me is speed. Adguard for Windows is slower and more CPU hungry than uBO/Adgaurd Browser extension.
simply because it has an advanced mode that can block site connections and AdGuard for Windows does not.
You can also configure Adguard for Windows to block any site you wish even though it doesn't have that advanced mode UI of uBO.
 

Jan Willy

Level 11
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jul 5, 2019
544
Yeah. I thought maybe I was missing an AG advanced mode, but I don't see anything like that.
I presume, you mean the possibility to block 3p content (creating dynamic rules) in medium - or in hard mode. I'm not a fan of such rules, but it's quite simple to create similar user rules in Adguard like:
||*^$third-party (hard mode)
||*^$script,third-party
||*^$subdocument,third-party
or
||*^$script,subdocument,third-party (medium mode)
 

n8chavez

Level 16
Thread author
Well-known
Feb 26, 2021
785
Interesting. I did not expect that high of a pro-adguard percentage. From what I can gleam, the argument here being that uBo's advanced mode is not really advantageous because it's a PitA since there's no gui-driven options. I suppose DNS filtering can block domains, so there's no need. Is anyone concerned at all with manifest v3? That *might* necessitate the need for non browser-based filtering. Which filter lists do you guys use?
 
Last edited:

n8chavez

Level 16
Thread author
Well-known
Feb 26, 2021
785
I presume, you mean the possibility to block 3p content (creating dynamic rules) in medium - or in hard mode. I'm not a fan of such rules, but it's quite simple to create similar user rules in Adguard like:
||*^$third-party (hard mode)
||*^$script,third-party
||*^$subdocument,third-party
or
||*^$script,subdocument,third-party (medium mode)

Why don't you like rule-based blocking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorrento

silversurfer

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Aug 17, 2014
10,057
It's an option that you can use or not. I don't see an option as an disadvantage.
I'm sorry, but I wrote "kind of disadvantage" so easier to understand as no real fact ;)
My intention was nothing like to bash Adguard. Honestly, long time ago, I have been purchased a lifetime of Adguard (3 devices) but prefer using on mobile only these days.
 

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