App Review AVAST One vs Windows Defender

[Parkinsond]

HEAT - Defender Hardening Console

You guys can try it (preview)

Best of luck for you, Trident.
Just need to be manually added to allow list in NextDNS; blocked by block NRD feature.

 

[Trident]

Best of luck for you, Trident.
Just need to be manually added to allow list in NextDNS; blocked by block NRD feature.

Yeah, this will change as the domain matures.
Thanks!

 

[lokamoka820]

But in the real world, MD was able to detect Xubuntu malware while Avast was not.

 

[roger_m]

But in the real world, MD was able to detect Xubuntu malware while Avast was not.

But that's VirusTotal, not the real world. Sometimes malware won't be detected by an antivirus on VT, but will be detected when the malware is launched on a PC with that antivirus installed.

 

[mlnevese]

Virustotal is at best a hint if a file may be malicious or not. It does not reflect any of the product's true capabilities. Often, I have seen a negative result on VT for a product I had installed and when I tested the sample locally it was immediately detected.

 

[Parkinsond]

But in the real world, MD was able to detect Xubuntu malware while Avast was not.

View attachment 292204

MD = the largest telemetry

 

[lokamoka820]

But that's VirusTotal, not the real world. Sometimes malware won't be detected by an antivirus on VT, but will be detected when the malware is launched on a PC with that antivirus installed.

Virustotal is at best a hint if a file may be malicious or not. It does not reflect any of the product's true capabilities. Often, I have seen a negative result on VT for a product I had installed and when I tested the sample locally it was immediately detected.

Maybe both of them will be able to detect it with real capabilities, but doesn't the fact that it was detected on VT by MD mean that it will be detected first (considering that VT only relies on signatures) leading to the conclusion that MD has the upper hand over Avast in this malware?

 

[mlnevese]

Maybe both of them will be able to detect it with real capabilities, but doesn't the fact that it was detected on VT by MD mean that it will be detected first (considering that VT only relies on signatures) leading to the conclusion that MD has the upper hand over Avast in this malware?

Not really. I remember an occasion when I was using Bitdefender and VT reported that Bitdefender didn’t detect a particular sample. When I downloaded it, it was immediately intercepted, with a malware name that indicated it was a definition-based detection rather than cloud or behavioral analysis. Even signature detections on VT don’t reflect the real signature capabilities of the full products you’d install on your computer. Just don’t ask me what sample it was. It was a few years ago and it happened with other products too.

 

[Miravi]

I was curious to read a little information on the disparity between VirusTotal and desktop antiviruses, and I stumbled on a conference paper over at ResearchGate: A Comparative Analysis of VirusTotal and Desktop Antivirus Detection Capabilities. It's now a few years old, but evidently their findings still stand.

Desktop antiviruses consistently detected more, and in some cases the difference was pretty remarkable. For example, Kaspersky's VT engine detected only 71% of the malware that the desktop version did (32 vs 45 detected samples).

 

[Parkinsond]

Desktop antiviruses consistently detected more, and in some cases the difference was pretty remarkable. For example, Kaspersky's VT engine detected only 71% of the malware that the desktop version did (32 vs 45 detected samples).

Depends on the AV; K and B rely to a large extent on behavioral analysis, so it represents a relatively large chunck of their detections, while it may not be the scenario for AVs relying more on signatures such as ESET and Avira.

 

[Miravi]

Depends on the AV; K and B rely to a large extent on behavioral analysis, so it represents a relatively large chunck of their detections, while it may not be the scenario for AVs relying more on signatures such as ESET and Avira.

I would agree that behavioral analysis should play a notable role. The paper mainly attributed it to a lack of cloud detection, for what it's worth.

 

[Zartarra]

Test is a little bias. The machine is dead but It can be that MD blocked 99% of the samples and let one through.

If this is the case, you should find out which sample broke the machine. That is why I dislike the mass dump test. Also take your time with the second scans. You don't stop it because it took too much time. Again this gives a bias result.

 

[Dave Russo]

Anyway, after using every Av under the sun(with good results) now its Defender with Cyber lock, and backups Defender is probably going to get even better( its got the backing$) and" we" all use back up programs , so I have no worry, except when I over tweak,trying to keep things simple.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Anyway, after using every Av under the sun(with good results) now its Defender with Cyber lock, and backups Defender is probably going to get even better( its got the backing$) and" we" all use back up programs , so I have no worry, except when I over tweak,trying to keep things simple.

Whatttt, no Eset anymore? Its what I ususally use, Defender with Cyberlock or Defender with WHHL>

 

[Dave Russo]

Whatttt, no Eset anymore? Its what I ususally use, Defender with Cyberlock or Defender with WHHL>

ESET policy of not sharing activations,( when it goes into effect. I am not sure), I chose to get a attitude

 

[Templarware]

How's the system responsiveness, gaming loading times and framerate of AVAST Free Antivirus vs Windows Defender now almost in 2026?

 

[Antimalware18]

Not really. I remember an occasion when I was using Bitdefender and VT reported that Bitdefender didn’t detect a particular sample. When I downloaded it, it was immediately intercepted, with a malware name that indicated it was a definition-based detection rather than cloud or behavioral analysis. Even signature detections on VT don’t reflect the real signature capabilities of the full products you’d install on your computer. Just don’t ask me what sample it was. It was a few years ago and it happened with other products too.

Its funny, On my end Bitdefender Free/VT work differently, Often times VT will say a sample is detected by Bitefender yet the local installation (that has the most recent updates) does not detect it. Sometimes for days after, sometimes it has not yet.

 

[Parkinsond]

Its funny, On my end Bitdefender Free/VT work differently, Often times VT will say a sample is detected by Bitefender yet the local installation (that has the most recent updates) does not detect it. Sometimes for days after, sometimes it has not yet.

The same applies to MD.

 

[Antimalware18]

The same applies to MD.

Im honestly laughing because it seems everyones experience depending on the AV is different, For me Bitdefender Free (I cannnot speak for paid) acts exactly as I said. And MD and AVG will honestly usually either equal on par the detections for VT or detect more locally than on VT. Which i honestly don't like because I like BD Free because of the behavioral/ransomware prtoection.

EDIT: This is after MD has been turned up to max via ConfigureDefender. Not MD out of the box.

 

[Parkinsond]

Im honestly laughing because it seems everyones experience depending on the AV is different, For me Bitdefender Free (I cannnot speak for paid) acts exactly as I said. And MD and AVG will honestly usually either equal on par the detections for VT or detect more locally than on VT. Which i honestly don't like because I like BD Free because of the behavioral/ransomware prtoection.

EDIT: This is after MD has been turned up to max via ConfigureDefender. Not MD out of the box.

MD on default settings scores equal to B free on AVC; it will even score better when tweaked.