"AV-Comparatives: Perfomance Test" (November 2016)

Venustus

Level 59
Thread author
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Forum Veteran
Dec 30, 2012
4,806
1
37,077
5,788
58
Sydney
1.jpg

 
Their test are more pointless each time they release one. How old are the malware that all the products got above 95%. Don't see a benefit from this kind of test. The extra 5% will save me? lol

EDIT: Linked graph was wrong so i replied for another test. How cool of me. LOL
The correct test is still bad though showing all products having a similar performance.The way they measure load for all this parameters makes the test worse because a lot of those are irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Their test are more pointless each time they release one. How old are the malware that all the products got above 95%. Don't see a benefit from this kind of test. The extra 5% will save me? lol
I can't fathom Bitdefender being lighter than Kaspersky,at least on my machine!!:rolleyes:
 
You should always test an anti-virus in your system to see how it behaves. In my notebook Bitdefender slows down boot and file operation in a very noticeable way while I don't even notice Kaspersky is installed unless it blocks something. It doesn't mean in your computer they would work like this...
 
Components/ features may affect the performance of an AV but that would not reflect in such dramatic result.

Avira, ESET, Norton, and few others are definitely light on majority of systems.

Actually I find Windows Defender light ;) and issue free for any programs installed on the system.