Battle Avast Free Antivirus 2016 vs Avira Free Antivirus 2016

[petersaints]

I've tried many free antivirus over the years, but these two have always consistently been the ones I liked the most.

After some issues with Windows 10 last year, I had to briefly switch to Avira but after the issues were fixed I got back to Avast because it was the one I had learned to rely upon in the last few years. However, I'm open to reassess my position between these two excellent products. Something that has also spurred me to reassess the situation was the fact that LifeHacker has recently changed their recommendation from Avast to Avira as the "The Best (Free) Antivirus App for Windows".

On one hand Avast offers a more complete feature set:

• File System Shield
• Web Shield
• Mail Shield
• Behavior Blocker (DeepScreen)

Still, I disable the E-mail blocker because I solely use Web mail. I also disable the Web shield because:

1. It seems to slightly slow down my browsing
2. I don't like to have all my HTTP traffic analyzed by the AV or any other program
3. Sometimes it doesn't play well with HTTPS because it internally to scan the encrypted traffic which changes the original website's certificate (I know I can selectively disable the Web Shield for HTTPS only)

So, in practice, I have been using the File System Shield and the Behavior Blocker with most of the default settings (e.g., PUP enabled, but no Hardened Mode) to avoid too many False Positives and issues with less known software. I've had no problems with this set up for a long time.

Regarding Avira, it lacks Mail and Web Shield (it only has a File System Shield) and as far as I'm aware they don't have a Behavior Blocking technology like Avast. They rely entirely upon signatures and heuristics. More recently they also have the Avira Protection Cloud which sends file signatures to the cloud in order to provide better protection (does it really improve upon the local signatures and heuristics or is it just a fad?).

The lack of Behavior Blocking is what concerns me in terms of how well protected I am with Avira compared to Avast. Is it really better to have Avira, with its better "traditional engine", or is it better to stick with Avast which sports a slightly worse "traditional engine", but that possesses advanced Behavior Blocking technology (DeepScreen)?

I'm also interested in other aspects besides protection, namely:

• Resource Usage: I'm mainly concerned with CPU usage. I'd also like to keep disk access to a minimum because I don't have an SSD, which means I don't want my AV to slow the disk access even further.
• Performance Impact: On daily usage (only with real-time protection enabled) which one has less impact on overall system performance.
• Ads, Popups and Nagging in general: How is the upgrade nagging on the two products? I mean, with Avast I've had no problems recently. The only popups I usually see are related to the real status of my system, or Software Updater notices to update a given program (e.g., Skype). I may very rarely see a popup that talks about some paid Avast product but they are pretty rare I believe. How is this on Avira? Does it still show you a popup on every update/every day? What kind of advertisements can I expect?

P.S.: Last time I used Avira it had a slightly annoying behavior. Every time it would detect some infected file it would then force me to automatically run a Quick Scan on the system. This was a bit annoying and time consuming at times. Is this still happening today?

I hope you guys can help me by sharing your experiences and opinions about both products.
I'll update this post if needed.

 

[OokamiCreed]

I chose Avast simply because it's sandbox and web blocking are very useful. Avast is also a very good AV/IS to have alongside another product.

What I like about Avira is it's signatures but since many many months ago, the free version of Avira will simply delete whatever it find with no notifications or user intervention options. This seems only available on the pro and higher versions.

As for Avast, until the recent patch for AMD systems, it would cause my system to BSOD on boot up. Currently I am using it as a companion beside Norton Security for its sandbox and web blocking. With AV (tweaked to be as light as possible), web shield (as Norton hasn't nearly the best web blocking), and sandbox only installed (all extras striped as well), it's pretty light on all system resources. I have to give another point to Avast for being compatible with other suites and for being a great companion while it's at it.

 

[jamescv7]

Honestly, I realize the words between simple and comprehensive.

Simple = Avira contains Cloud and deadly detection rates from all means, where the stakes of risk are high to conduct failures because of no plan B method.

Comprehensive = Avast brought numerous features, however it depends on the user from which certain features need most.

So still a user perspective here, remember that choose an AV that intended to protect for very long time without playing dangerous malware.

 

[petersaints]

Hmm... If Avira has no plan B method, what do you consider Avast's plan B method to be?

And, yes... I don't usually play with dangerous malware. I'm a pretty safe user. However, I like to keep some peace of mind, by knowing that there's still a chance that my AV will stop me from doing something wrong if I have a misstep.

 

[TheMalwareMaster]

Hmm... If Avira has no plan B method, what do you consider Avast's plan B method to be?

And, yes... I don't usually play with dangerous malware. I'm a pretty safe user. However, I like to keep some peace of mind, by knowing that there's still a chance that my AV will stop me from doing something wrong if I have a misstep.

Basically, avast plan B are deepscreen, HIPS or hardened mode. Hardened mode is disabled by default, it's pretty good but can cause a lot of false positives

 

[sunrise]

Qihoo 360 is also an interesting option. I did test it sometime ago. I quite liked it, but I heard that it was a bit prone to give out false positives. Besides that, I kind of dislike the fact that it has multiple engines. I mean it's good, but it's hard to decide which ones to keep enabled, since more engines = more system impact, and for example, if the BitDefender engines gets (almost) everything that the Avira engine gets, it's (almost) pointless to have them running concurrently, thus wasting resources for little to no security gain.

First, I will never touch avast again unless they change their ways. More marketing, half-baked "fancy" term, less protection
Second, have been using Qihoo360 TSE for almost a year already. QIhoo own engine is good enough. Downside is is fully cloud. SO if you don't like to have so many engines, just use their own engine, You don't need to enable Bitdefender or Avira's. More engines = more system impact is not exactly true for 360. How bad is your system until enabling EITHER one will cause system impact? You can pick Bitdefender or Avira. You don't need to pick both.

 

[Captain Awesome]

First, I will never touch avast again unless they change their ways. More marketing, half-baked "fancy" term, less protection

FYI:New beta version : 2016.12.1.2263
In this beta Avast! removed some non crucial features and focused on overall performance.So they change something for good.

 

[sunrise]

FYI:New beta version : 2016.12.1.2263
In this beta Avast! removed some non crucial features and focused on overall performance.So they change something for good.

Let's see the result first, then we talk. Like last time, avast introduce new "fancy" technologies which didn't work/didn't increase their detection.

 

[petersaints]

... You can pick Bitdefender or Avira. You don't need to pick both.

Sure, but which one would you pick?

Regarding Avast marketing strategy, it's a bit aggressive but still manageable. It's in line with what other free AVs do. The only thing that I really disapprove is the insertion of advertisement on e-mails that you send via SMTP as they go through the Mail Shield. At the very least, that should be something that you are asked about during installation, even if it is selected by default. It should be apparent that you are allowing it happen, instead of snicking ads into your e-mails. It has never been a problem for me because I only use web-based e-mail, but it's a bad practice nonetheless.

 

[Nikos751]

AFAIK, the Avira Protection Cloud only receives file signatures, so unless the file is already known as malicious, it will come out as clean. Unless, APC is smart enough to ask for the whole file if this is the first time that it is seeing it. This way, it may run it on remote Cloud-based Sandbox to determine if it is malicious or not. This way, after a file is run for the first time for one user, all other users can check if it was marked as malicious without having to upload the whole file (only the signature is needed). I don't know if they have implemented it this way, but it seems the most safe and efficient way to do it.

In fact the official APC white paper states this: "
If the file corresponds to a previously recognized file that is known to be safe, the process is approved, the user accesses the file and life goes on as normal.
However, if the file cannot be identified, the APC will request the user to upload the complete file for a full analysis. After scanning, if this full file is found to include malware, the APC will instantly quarantine it and define it as “malicious”."
So, it really uploads the whole file if it's unknown.

 

[giants8058]

I'd have to go with Avast since while Avira has some of the best detection rates out there, their real-time protection is definitely lacking. And in this day and age, it is just as important if not more than detection rate. What good is an AV if it allows malware to be installed before the next scan occurs.