What product do you recommend among the ones mentioned?

  • Avast Free Antivirus 2016

    Votes: 39 45.9%
  • Avira Free Antivirus 2016

    Votes: 46 54.1%
  • Total voters
    85
List of apps to compare
Avast Free Antivirus 2016, Avira Free Antivirus 2016
What I am most interested about
Exclusive Features & Functionality
Why I want to compare these apps
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.

OokamiCreed

Level 18
Verified
Trusted
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jack and frogboy

jamescv7

Level 61
Verified
Trusted
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack

TheMalwareMaster

Level 20
Verified
Trusted
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: yigido

sunrise

Level 2
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dJim

Captain Awesome

Level 21
Verified
Malware Tester
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yigido and dJim

sunrise

Level 2
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.
 
... 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

Level 17
Verified
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZeroDay

giants8058

Level 4
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.