AV-Comparatives performance test ( October)

aliali

Level 2
Thread author
Verified
Sep 7, 2016
76
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/avc_per_201710_en.pdf


Capture.PNG
 

Andy Ful

From Hard_Configurator Tools
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Developer
Well-known
Dec 23, 2014
8,004
For daily usage, the test used PC Mark 10 Professional. From the program website we can see the tested workloads:
App Start-up, Web Browsing, Video Conferencing, Writing, Spreadsheets, Digital Content Creation (DCC), Photo Editing, Video Editing, Rendering and Visualization.
All AVs scored very well.(y)
.
The big differences were in other tested workloads, especially for file copying and installing / uninstalling applications. Windows Defender was noticeably worse than most of AVs, here. There is a lot to learn for Microsoft in this area.
I tested myself file copying and the time ratio 'Defender Enabled' / 'Defender Disabled' = 8. (n)
But, I do not think that the above performance chart could be thought as a real performance impact for daily work.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,684
For daily usage, the test used PC Mark 10 Professional. From the program website we can see the tested workloads:
App Start-up, Web Browsing, Video Conferencing, Writing, Spreadsheets, Digital Content Creation (DCC), Photo Editing, Video Editing, Rendering and Visualization.
All AVs scored very well.(y)
.
The big differences were in other tested workloads, especially for file copying and installing / uninstalling applications. Windows Defender was noticeably worse than most of AVs, here. There is a lot to learn for Microsoft in this area.
I tested myself file copying and the time ratio 'Defender Enabled' / 'Defender Disabled' = 8. (n)
But, I do not think that the above performance chart could be thought as a real performance impact for daily work.
I agree, I think it's better to test AVs ourselves + take a look at AV-C and AV-tests's tests especially the columns we do the most everyday (Launching applications, Browsing websites or file coping,...)

I usually don't take the tests from them seriously (<40%) but I 60-70% believe in their performance test for some AVs so if an AV performs badly in 2-3 tests by 2 testing companies (AVC, AV-test or MRG), I truly believe it's the same for most users except they refuse to test other AVs for enough amount of time or just don't want to switch

for me the lightest AV don't have on-access scanning: zemana & webroot, for example. They are super light
another factor should be the scanning speed. that's why emsisoft, immunet are really light
 

RoboMan

Level 34
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Jun 24, 2016
2,399
I was expecting to see one of this independent testers claim BitDefender and Kaspersky consume the less resources like everyone says on the internet for a couple of dollars... I have to totally agree with this test. ESET is literally the most light software i have ever tried, after trying Defender, BitDefender, Norton, Emsisoft and Kaspersky. Can't almost feel it!
 

mlnevese

Level 26
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
May 3, 2015
1,531
The only surprise for me is Bitdefender in fourth place, since for me it was always the heaviest. F-Secure and ESET i agree, have always been the lightest.

I tested Bitdefender for a few days a week or so ago and was quite surprised by how light it was on my computer actually. As light as Kaspersky and way lighter than Windows Defender... That's why I always tell people to test this kind of software on their own systems...
 

Windows_Security

Level 24
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Mar 13, 2016
1,298
For daily usage, the test used PC Mark 10 Professional. From the program website we can see the tested workloads:
App Start-up, Web Browsing, Video Conferencing, Writing, Spreadsheets, Digital Content Creation (DCC), Photo Editing, Video Editing, Rendering and Visualization.
All AVs scored very well.(y)
.
The big differences were in other tested workloads, especially for file copying and installing / uninstalling applications. Windows Defender was noticeably worse than most of AVs, here. There is a lot to learn for Microsoft in this area.
I tested myself file copying and the time ratio 'Defender Enabled' / 'Defender Disabled' = 8. (n)
But, I do not think that the above performance chart could be thought as a real performance impact for daily work.

Would not 8 be something simular as Panda/AVG? Or am I completely misinterpreting the meaning of 8?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aliali

Faybert

Level 24
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jan 8, 2017
1,318
I tested Bitdefender for a few days a week or so ago and was quite surprised by how light it was on my computer actually. As light as Kaspersky and way lighter than Windows Defender... That's why I always tell people to test this kind of software on their own systems...
Yes, each system is a different case, but unfortunately, Bitdefender has never been friendly with my computer, the performance falls a lot with it installed, even though I have a powerful pc.
 

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