Battle AVG Free vs Avira Free Security vs Microsoft Defender (Default Settings)

[Azazel]

Want a robust solution.
1. Andy Ful's Whhlight

• SRP: OFF
• SmartScreen Block: OFF
• WDAC: ON

2. Kaspersky Free: Default + Block port scanning and network flooding attacks

The Best protection you can get for free.

 

[Antimalware18]

I voted AVG purely because Defender is stated as default settings. I haven't used Avira in any full capacity really since about 2010

 

[oldschool]

I voted AVG purely because Defender is stated as default settings.

I believe OP meant to choose between all 3 AVs used with their default settings.

 

[oldschool]

Want a robust solution.
1. Andy Ful's Whhlight

• SRP: OFF
• SmartScreen Block: OFF
• WDAC: ON

2. Kaspersky Free: Default + Block port scanning and network flooding attacks

The Best protection you can get for free.

Off-topic. OP listed 3 other AVs.

 

[lokamoka820]

I would say AVG/Avast, bot honestly... Anyone who cares for security takes a little bit of time to tweak security modules in antivirus to achieve a maximum protection (or at least a decent combination of protection/performance).

I want to compare the defaults to select a free product fist, then continue with tweaking after.

I know that MS Defender could be tweaked with something like DefenderUI, and AVG/Avast with Hardened Mode, but what about Avira?

 

[lokamoka820]

Want a robust solution.
1. Andy Ful's Whhlight

• SRP: OFF
• SmartScreen Block: OFF
• WDAC: ON

2. Kaspersky Free: Default + Block port scanning and network flooding attacks

The Best protection you can get for free.

To be honest, I never understood how to use Andy Ful's Whhlight and if I can back to default settings if something goes wrong, and if it will effect performance or make more false positive.

Kaspersky on the other hand, was the slowest on browsing, and lately I have noticed that defender become active and both running in the same time, I don't know how, but it happened two or three times for me, even restart didn't fix it.

 

[lokamoka820]

I voted AVG purely because Defender is stated as default settings. I haven't used Avira in any full capacity really since about 2010

So I can guess that you will vote for Defender + DefenderUI (Recommended Settings) over AVG?

 

[Antimalware18]

I believe OP meant to choose between all 3 AVs used with their default settings.

My mistake, thanks for clarifying. I would honestly still pick AVG though.

 

[franz]

According to the latest tests, Avast/AVG have very good detection and performance, which are slightly better than Defender. I think the Avast engine is one of the best right now. So, I would choose AVG. And if I have an extra couple of euros, I would buy Avast in another region for the handy sandbox and some small benefits..

You are absolutely right in your thinking, but when you still want to pay for protection, (as I do) why don't you go all the way and buy Kaspersky? I would like to ask, is there a safer product? You get bank protection that works, and a product that has been at the very top for many years.

Yes, I know that there are many good products such as, f-secure, Eset etc., but I don't think there are other programs that beat Kaspersy in the long run.

 

[Wrecker4923]

I would like to comment assuming AVG uses the same engine as Avast Free. I used Avast free for many years despite all the naggings and the privacy invasion, but eventually moved off it because the memory it used kept growing (compared to my web browser, FF, which uses the most memory on my system day-to-day) and I had to reboot every few days. I went to BitDefender which was very nice because of no nagging. This still used the same ballpark of memory although it didn't grow and I didn't have to reboot. I had some concerns related to root certificates, SSD wearing, and because of the trend that all the forums now seem to recommend average users to use MS defender, I am now running MS Defender.

From the memory standpoint, MS Defender is a stunning success compared to the other two. From the "Private Bytes" column of Process Explorer, it always uses around 360-390MB of memory compared to >800MB of the other two (with regular reboot for Avast). My computer also seems to be snappier as well, but this is more marginal. Since I base my "detection performance" from the AV comparatives, they are virtually the same with some slight edges toward Avast and Bitdefender.

I understand from tests published by other people that a full scan for MS defender is significantly slower than Avast/Bitdefender, but I have never run a full scan using MS defender yet because 1) I was regularly running Bitdefender full scan, why run the same thing if it's going to be slow 2) MS defender seems to be picking things up even when I am not running a scan, and I am not using the files that it picks up (WTF), so why run a full scan? Quick scan is faster with MS defender, but this is in the margin of tens of seconds.

Nowadays, with the security habits that they try to instill in you: no funny links, no unexpected downloads, super cautions (VirusTotal) for all expected downloads, no email links, no pirated software, minimizing software/extension used, exclusive control of your computer, scanning devices connected to your computer, I don't see how I would practically ever see the "detection rate" in action personally. Gone are the days of trying out those nice freeware/shareware. Welcome to the days of grandpa's computer. I fear the supply-chain attacks of the existing software the most.

TLDR; I am happy with how MS defender turns out. Avast and Bitdefender had web protection, at the cost of installing root certificates and feeling freaky about them (I don't think Avast even tells you, which was comforting). I do use AdGuard DNS for ad/malware filtering, with more filtering from uBlock origin, trafficlight, and Malwarebyte browser guard. With 32MB of RAM, and better budgets for SSD, I might have continued with Bitdefender. Avast free with its nagging is out (with Avast one free being worse.) I am neck-deep with MS privacy invasion anyway, maybe not adding more with the abilities to read all my encrypted traffic is a good idea.

 

[CyberDevil]

You are absolutely right in your thinking, but when you still want to pay for protection, (as I do) why don't you go all the way and buy Kaspersky? I would like to ask, is there a safer product? You get bank protection that works, and a product that has been at the very top for many years.

I have limited experience with Kaspersky, the only Russian software I have is Kerish Doctor. I have no desire to increase this list, as with the Chinese, for example. Local tests show that there are many excellent products. If you need banking protection, then in my opinion Eset provides an excellent level of protection for the browser, blocking unknown extensions, checking certificates, launching the browser in a sandbox, and at the same time they have an excellent web filter. Either way, it comes down to personal taste. To claim that Kaspersky is an ideal antivirus is, in my opinion, an exaggeration.

In any case, if you want to use Kaspersky, I don’t understand why you should buy it if the free version in tests always has the same level of protection as the paid one.

 

[lokamoka820]

I would like to comment assuming AVG uses the same engine as Avast Free. I used Avast free for many years despite all the naggings and the privacy invasion, but eventually moved off it because the memory it used kept growing (compared to my web browser, FF, which uses the most memory on my system day-to-day) and I had to reboot every few days. I went to BitDefender which was very nice because of no nagging. This still used the same ballpark of memory although it didn't grow and I didn't have to reboot. I had some concerns related to root certificates, SSD wearing, and because of the trend that all the forums now seem to recommend average users to use MS defender, I am now running MS Defender.

From the memory standpoint, MS Defender is a stunning success compared to the other two. From the "Private Bytes" column of Process Explorer, it always uses around 360-390MB of memory compared to >800MB of the other two (with regular reboot for Avast). My computer also seems to be snappier as well, but this is more marginal. Since I base my "detection performance" from the AV comparatives, they are virtually the same with some slight edges toward Avast and Bitdefender.

I understand from tests published by other people that a full scan for MS defender is significantly slower than Avast/Bitdefender, but I have never run a full scan using MS defender yet because 1) I was regularly running Bitdefender full scan, why run the same thing if it's going to be slow 2) MS defender seems to be picking things up even when I am not running a scan, and I am not using the files that it picks up (WTF), so why run a full scan? Quick scan is faster with MS defender, but this is in the margin of tens of seconds.

Nowadays, with the security habits that they try to instill in you: no funny links, no unexpected downloads, super cautions (VirusTotal) for all expected downloads, no email links, no pirated software, minimizing software/extension used, exclusive control of your computer, scanning devices connected to your computer, I don't see how I would practically ever see the "detection rate" in action personally. Gone are the days of trying out those nice freeware/shareware. Welcome to the days of grandpa's computer. I fear the supply-chain attacks of the existing software the most.

TLDR; I am happy with how MS defender turns out. Avast and Bitdefender had web protection, at the cost of installing root certificates and feeling freaky about them (I don't think Avast even tells you, which was comforting). I do use AdGuard DNS for ad/malware filtering, with more filtering from uBlock origin, trafficlight, and Malwarebyte browser guard. With 32MB of RAM, and better budgets for SSD, I might have continued with Bitdefender. Avast free with its nagging is out (with Avast one free being worse.) I am neck-deep with MS privacy invasion anyway, maybe not adding more with the abilities to read all my encrypted traffic is a good idea.

Thank you so much for your detailed comment, I like it when I get answers based on personal experience with the pros and cons of the software. I didn't tried Avast for more than on day, so I don't know about this problems about it, what I don't like is that it take about 2GB on the drive, for Bitdefender I don't like that it is a ram eater, 600mb for just one of its processes, I think every 3rd party AV have a problem, and that make me always back to MS Defender.

 

[ForgottenSeer 109138]

Thank you so much for your detailed comment, I like it when I get answers based on personal experience with the pros and cons of the software. I didn't tried Avast for more than on day, so I don't know about this problems about it, what I don't like is that it take about 2GB on the drive, for Bitdefender I don't like that it is a ram eater, 600mb for just one of its processes, I think every 3rd party AV have a problem, and that make me always back to MS Defender.

Its good to read those to learn possibilities but these are based on that users knowledge and experience and also their equipment, its set up and uses. You will not be able to apply this unless you replicate all that exactly.

 

[Jan Willy]

and that make me always back to MS Defender.

Very, very wise. The best thing you can do. Eventually optimized with Andy Fuls ConfigureDefender. Look around on this forum.

 

[jerzy601]

I use Microsoft Defender with hardening all the time and I like it very much and I have no problems.
Besides, I don't want to change something that works well.

 

[BSONE]

I fear the supply-chain attacks of the existing software the most.

I believe this to be one the more worrisome security concerns in the future. Not just for targeted attacks such as the SolarWinds hack. Any legitimate piece of software that has third party dependencies is potentially vulnerable.

 

[Behold Eck]

Avira has nearly if not better sigs than Avast/AVG, is very light and has less nag/scareware alerts.

Ms Defender has no nag/scareware alerts but I find it a lot heavier than the other two plus it doesn`t seem to do as well in independant tests.

Avira Free got my vote.

Regards Eck

 

[Slerion]

I would choose AVG or Avast (the "free" version, not Avast ONE). They respond quickly to samples of malicious software or false positives, typically within one or two days with a result. In contrast, Microsoft often takes literal weeks to respond and tends to misclassify samples as malicious, sticking with those decisions. Unfortunately, Avira has become too bloated nowadays.

 

[SumTingWong]

Is there a way to make Windows Defender automatically check for signatures update every 1 hour without going through Windows Update?

I know there is a way somewhere on the internet that you can do it via task scheduler, but the problem with this method is the command prompt windows pop up.

 

[oldschool]

Is there a way to make Windows Defender automatically check for signatures update every 1 hour without going through Windows Update?

I know there is a way somewhere on the internet that you can do it via task scheduler, but the problem with this method is the command prompt windows pop up.

Run this powershell command as administrator:

Set-MpPreference -SignatureUpdateInterval 1