AV-Lab's test of FREE malware scanners

[frogboy]

Using EAM and ZAM on both my machines, seems to work well for me.

 

[Motion]

I´m using EEK and HMP.
I'm surprised because Clam is stronger than Microsoft in detection.
But anyway, detection is only part of the solution. Cleaning and reducing false positives is as important as the detection itself.
Thanks for sharing it

 

[kev216]

I thought that MalwareBytes said that you don't need an AV anymore when using their products... Clearly shows that MBAM is really becoming more and more useless. Since they went to version 2 and ditched the good old UI, it's only going negative for Malwarebytes.
They didn't even take the time to test the crappy and shady Zemana lol. Says a lot about the product and their business tactics....

 

[Behold Eck]

Where`s Superantispyware never mind the other omissions.

Regards Eck

 

[amico81]

Every few days I´m using EEK too

 

[Hector1]

EEK, Zemana and NPE on my notebook

 

[Lightning_Brian]

Sad to see how Malwarebytes has gone so down over the years. On other hand, good job EEK! Its performance and scan speed is like that of an online scanner, very fast.

@Deletedmessiah couldn't have said it better myself. If I didn't have lifetime license Malwarebytes I would ditch it completely from my security config. I'm now using it as an on-demand once a month type of scan. EEK I have been using as my top-rated on-demand scanner that I use on a weekly basis - sometimes three times a week just to double check thing out.

Using EAM and ZAM on both my machines, seems to work well for me.

@frogboy ZAM is a great product! I'm excited to see this company going in the right direction with great detection.

EEK, Zemana and NPE on my notebook

@Hector1 NPE and EEK work great together! Good on-demand scanners.

 

[tim one]

Well, no doubt about Emsisoft engine, but yes, MalwareBytes is down, what happens?

 

[Deleted member 65228]

I was testing Malwarebytes Anti-Malware recently and it didn't perform that badly, I think that their web protection is nice - they were one of the only vendors to block and outbound connection to a known IP address which should have definitely been blocked. Tests from the past have also been very bad though. Overall I think the product is OK, I personally would prefer a product from a vendor like Emsisoft though (whether on-demand or real-time).

I think that they messed up when they tried to become a full AV replacement though... They were doing so well as "second opinion". I cannot deny that I think that their Anti-Exploit software is very good though still.

 

[tim one]

I think that they messed up when they tried to become a full AV replacement though... They were doing so well as "second opinion". I cannot deny that I think that their Anti-Exploit software is very good though still.

+1 Fully agree on that.

 

[bribon77]

MBA was shot in the foot. The high consumption for detection is not justified. It cannot be used just because it is not enough and using it with an Av is not justified.

 

[Motion]

The sad situation, for me, of MBAM is not that there are better solutions, MBAM is not now a good solution. Sadly, if they give me a license, I would not use it.

A few years ago they were the reference, now they are the shadow of what they were, I hope they improve and recover part of their market, because now they are like a big sleeping dinosaur

 

[Deletedmessiah]

If I didn't have lifetime license Malwarebytes I would ditch it completely from my security config. I'm now using it as an on-demand once a month type of scan

I have a lifetime license myself but I still don't use it. Very high resource use and it is slow to update definitions for me. If it was light on resources, I'd still keep it even with poor detections.
I can only hope they improve this product like how Norton did. Their anti-exploit still seems good but doesn't justify high resource use. And I'd rather use standalone Malwarebytes anti-exploit rather than MBAM if I want this feature.

 

[bribon77]

I also have a lifetime license. and I'm waiting for them to fix it. To use it.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

I also have a lifetime license. and I'm waiting for them to fix it. To use it.

I feel your pain and up it.. I have 8 lifetime licenses.. Granted, they cost me $5 each, I still won't use the product.

 

[Deleted member 178]

MBAM v2 was a beast, v3 looks like a puppy...

i hope they will get better because i have a lifetime license, and i won't like it to be useless

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware v2 was a beast, v3 looks like a puppy...

i hope they will get better because i have a lifetime license, and i won't like it to be useless

1.75 was the legend.. v2 was pretty decent. We still use 1.75 for malware removal scans because v3 is a real dog.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Yep v1.75 indeed was exceptional. I think vendors should stop trying to be what they aren't supposed to be.
Better be a superb specialist than an average generalist.

 

[Deletedmessiah]

Version 1.75 was very fast and very light. Version 2 was slow to scan and high resource usage while scanning but background use rest of the time, it was still light so it was acceptable. Version 3 is unacceptable, they should go back to the way how it was during version 1.75. I too don't want that lifetime license to go to waste

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Yep v1.75 indeed was exceptional. I think vendors should stop trying to be what they aren't supposed to be.
Better be a superb specialist than an average generalist.

1.75 worked great, fast, simple, effective in so many areas. They tried to become everything, as you said, and as a result are now good at nothing. I think they need to go back to their roots and stop with the nonsense they have going on now. But I fear they've lost their way too far to turn back.

We all love 1.75, all they needed to do was slap a better interface on 1.75 and we'd all flock to it. Then work on the signatures, heuristics and other crap and not bloat it up and they'd have a great product again.