Products to compare
All common AVs
Compare
Performance and System Impact
Computer protection (Antivirus engine, Heuristic engine)

Burrito

Level 20
Verified
1564518937764.png


There are 7 finishers with a perfect 'protection' score of 100. A few of them make the whole scoring system and project suspect.

Of all the products, there are two definitive losers in 'protection' ---

--VirIT eXplorer PRO
--Webroot (..What a surprise..)


...and I was just about to buy VirIT eXplorer PRO.... thank goodness...



1564518709136.png


1564518798855.png


1564518850721.png



No need to pile on with comments discrediting the compilation. Everybody gets it. There are limitations to testing and aggregation, and many results here are questionable... and the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

1564520023325.png


At least Webroot can look down at somebody..
 

Nightwalker

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
Interesting aggregate scores, but the results arent very update, just look at AVG and Avast difference for example (they are now almost the same product).

fatsecurity.com (seems down now) had a much more compreensive and up to date aggregate scores ...

Here in Brazil Kaspersky is the cheapest antivirus solution, you can buy it at a official reseller for less than US$ 6 (one year, one device).


 

Andrew3000

Level 6
Verified
Malware Tester
It's a real product, but that doesn't mean they aren't shady.

They license technology from AdGuard at the least. Officially.
Yes, but I still don’t trust TotalAV. It is still reported as PUPs by some antivirus.
Also, looking at the internet there are various negative opinions such as the fact of subtracting €100 without authorization or after paying the license expired after 1 month.
 
4

436880927

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA
It makes sense if they are licensing from third-parties. Obviously if they are licensing from third-parties then it would be logical that they can score just as high as those they are licensing from.

Avira has been used by shady AVs before. So has Bitdefender. And Reason Core. And Zemana (whatever it is they actually offer).

Yes, but I still don’t trust TotalAV. It is still reported as PUPs by some antivirus.
Also, looking at the internet there are various negative opinions such as the fact of subtracting €100 without authorization or after paying the license expired after 1 month.
Yeah, that might be. But it doesn't mean it can't be a real AV. It can just be an unethical one, or a real product by people with unethical or border-line illegal business practices, etc.
 

Seyyed Akram

Level 8
Verified
just look at AVG and Avast difference for example (they are now almost the same product).
Maybe the Firewall component helped in preventing infections in some cases? Does Avast Free include a firewall module?

Yes, but I still don’t trust TotalAV. It is still reported as PUPs by some antivirus.
Also, looking at the internet there are various negative opinions such as the fact of subtracting €100 without authorization or after paying the license expired after 1 month.
Screenshot (12).png
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
Very interesting report!

Microsoft Defender protection rating right up there.
I have to agree and to be honest it's almost at the point where it's like what can a 3rd party AV do for me that WD can't. Mind you MS still has some performance things to weak, as well as FP (but that seems to be slowly improved upon), but if they ever do I personally don't see a reason as to why a 3rd party would offer anything over whats built into Windows. If you want more, just use something like VS, OSA, Syshardener, H_C, etc... and you pretty much have all your bases covered IMO. It will be an interesting year to see how much more MS can improve WD come the next major version.(y)
 

Nightwalker

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
Very interesting report!



I have to agree and to be honest it's almost at the point where it's like what can a 3rd party AV do for me that WD can't. Mind you MS still has some performance things to weak, as well as FP (but that seems to be slowly improved upon), but if they ever do I personally don't see a reason as to why a 3rd party would offer anything over whats built into Windows. If you want more, just use something like VS, OSA, Syshardener, H_C, etc... and you pretty much have all your bases covered IMO. It will be an interesting year to see how much more MS can improve WD come the next major version.(y)
Personally I think Windows Defender false positives issue is overrated, it happens with very low prevalence files, thats why even with its huge userbase we dont hear average users complaining about it.

I wont be surprised if Windows Defender gets nominated as antivirus of the year in 2020 by AV-Comparatives.
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
Personally I think Windows Defender false positives issue is overrated, it happens with very low prevalence files, thats why even with its huge userbase we dont hear average users complaining about it.

I wont be surprised if Windows Defender gets nominated as antivirus of the year in 2020 by AV-Comparatives.
Agree!

Using WD I really haven't had any major FP issues, despite what some may say. To be fair, the only test where it does "poorly" on FP is AV-comparatives, every other professional test doesn't show WD to be as bad as it's made out to be (FP wise). Could be the files they use, but like you said, if one really looks close at the break down from AV-Comparatives regarding FP, it's always the new to very low prevalence that get's the higher marks, anything higher WD does very well.

I too wouldn't be surprised if WD gets nominated as AV of the year!
 

roger_m

Level 24
Verified
Content Creator
Avira has been used by shady AVs before.
TotalAV and most of the "shady" antiviruses are using Avira signatures. A few years ago, it was more common to see Bitdefender signatures used.
But it doesn't mean it can't be a real AV. It can just be an unethical one, or a real product by people with unethical or border-line illegal business practices, etc.
Aside from TotalAV, two good examples are MajorAV and ITL Total Security. They are all very basic antiviruses, using Avira signatures and they lack any kind of proactive protection, for example. Because they are using Avira signatures and not their own, they do detect malware and don't have significant issues with false positives. They work - just not very well.
 

blackice

Level 11
Verified
Personally I think Windows Defender false positives issue is overrated, it happens with very low prevalence files, thats why even with its huge userbase we dont hear average users complaining about it.

I wont be surprised if Windows Defender gets nominated as antivirus of the year in 2020 by AV-Comparatives.
I’ve mostly used WD since it’s inception. I’ve never seen a false positive...or infection.
 

upnorth

Level 34
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Just to hopefully avoid any possible confusion in this thread, not all AV companies/vendors that use Aviras engine is automatically "shady". F-Secure as an example switched one of it's engine from Bitdefender to Avira not long ago and that decision was far from anything even close to, shady.
 
Last edited:
P

Pkjfkknm

I have to agree and to be honest it's almost at the point where it's like what can a 3rd party AV do for me that WD can't.
differencs not apparent not even on "advanced" forum
to see the difference must know how to test at pen-test level and not just play with malware packs