Battle Avast vs Windows Defender vs Bitdefender

[DJ Panda]

All three products are free and very good to use. Which would you use or currently are using?

 

[insanity]

Since you're staying on the free side, I would go for Avast: lightweight, nice UI, many good features and all the settings for you to change as you like. Last time I checked Bitdefender Free it was a (very) cutdown version of BD AV Plus, with very basic features and a bit buggy, but I would still prefer it to Windows Defender, though.

 

[ForgottenSeer 55778]

Since you're staying on the free side, I would go for Avast: lightweight, nice UI, many good features and all the settings for you to change as you like. Last time I checked Bitdefender Free it was a (very) cutdown version of BD AV Plus, with very basic features and a bit buggy, but I would still prefer it to Windows Defender, though.

I agree. However, WD is great, especially with Voodooshield or ZAM. Either one with WD would be less buggy, lighter, and more protective than Bitdefender Free, which still seems unfinished.

 

[Rolo]

Avast: too many false-positives, nags, bloat, day-ruining bugs in updates in the past (not sure if they're better now); seems fast though
Windows Defender: slow, low-detection rate and in spite of that, still managed a couple of false-positives for me, but still rare though
Bitdefender Free: using it on my laptop and VM. It's looking like I may replace Panda on my desktop with BD. I may also switch most of my clients from WD to BD