shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
The way they tested performance is not so relevant to the user habits of people like me.
Performance is highly individual. You need to try out a product on your own system, with your own applications and user habits, or else you are bound to get a skewed picture.

Performance Test Methodology | AV-Comparatives

Test Setup:
"The hard disks are defragmented before starting each individual test run"
"Archiving and unarchiving"
"Installing an uninstalling applications"
"Downloading files"
 

Nevi

Level 4
Verified
@Burrito Tencent is one of the lightest antiviruses there is (lighter than just about every other antivirus) and for a while now it has been one of the top scorers in protection tests.
That sounds exciting. Tencent use 2 engines, their own and Bitdefenders. If it is so light as you say, it could be a winner. But a really light antivirus with Bitdefenders engine in it? What hocus pocus is involved?
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
When I used to have Eset I would occasionally double check if it was running. It's so light that it feels suspicious. It's like not having an AV at all.
You are paying a price for the lightness. I will quote an interesting post I saw on this subject:

Ultra Male said:
With ESET's NOD32 for example, it will never scan a file again provided the file hash (like a file fingerprint) hasn't changed. That's why when you install NOD32, you wanna run a full system scan once as that will tremendously improve your computer's performance since those files that were scanned before will not be scanned and the AntiVirus now just sits like a security guard for your computer protecting you from bad websites, downloads, and new files.
anon:
That leads to on-execution scan/detection only.

i.e. =
Today you run a full scan, you have the X malware but your AV signature database miss it.
Tomorrow, a new signature for the X malware is added but the file (which is already scanned) remains with the same hash = whitelisted => undetected.
 

uduoix

Level 5
The way they tested performance is not so relevant to the user habits of people like me.
Performance is highly individual. You need to try out a product on your own system, with your own applications and user habits, or else you are bound to get a skewed picture.

Performance Test Methodology | AV-Comparatives

Test Setup:
"The hard disks are defragmented before starting each individual test run"
"Archiving and unarchiving"
"Installing an uninstalling applications"
"Downloading files"
All this works super fast with WD on my PC and laptop. According to AV-Comparatives WD should slow down pc quite a bit
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
That leads to on-execution scan/detection only.

i.e. =
Today you run a full scan, you have the X malware but your AV signature database miss it.
Tomorrow, a new signature for the X malware is added but the file (which is already scanned) remains with the same hash = whitelisted => undetected.
However, this claim has been refuted by an ESET rep:

The local cache is flushed during a module update so it wouldn't happen that a detection was added and the malware sitting on your disk would be undetected because the scan result was cached.
 

roger_m

Level 24
Verified
Content Creator
If it is so light as you say, it could be a winner. But a really light antivirus with Bitdefenders engine in it? What hocus pocus is involved?
It is very light even on low end systems. Sometimes antiviruses using signatures from another vendor, are lighter and sometimes significantly lighter than the original product.

It does have some issues though and the lack of English language support is also an issue.
 

Nightwalker

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
You are paying a price for the lightness. I will quote an interesting post I saw on this subject:

Ultra Male said:

anon:
That leads to on-execution scan/detection only.

i.e. =
Today you run a full scan, you have the X malware but your AV signature database miss it.
Tomorrow, a new signature for the X malware is added but the file (which is already scanned) remains with the same hash = whitelisted => undetected.
Dont bother with this Anon guy argument, its totally wrong, I will clarify later (I am on my smartphone).