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

[RoboMan]

I would personally discard Avira Free.

All it offers is real time protection Not even web protection.

 

[ForgottenSeer 109138]

@lokamoka820

If windows built in security has been working just fine for you, no infections or issues just stick with it because, it's part of the system, offering best compatibility without bringing 3rd party bugs and vulnerabilities to the system.

 

[lokamoka820]

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.

Nice, what is your thoughts about Bitdefender free compared to Avast/AVG? What will you select and why?

 

[Pat MacKnife]

Most of the time i use BD free, but last two months there are several bugs with W11
Icon in taskbar slowly loading services and slower browsing, for now test driving MS defender but thats a little heavier than others, protection should be fine with MS.

 

[Pat MacKnife]

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.

I think there is no need to set 1 hour, because when your online then you are connected to the cloud which has the latest updates. . . . only when you work a lot offline it can be handy.
Anyone else ?

 

[Slerion]

Nice, what is your thoughts about Bitdefender free compared to Avast/AVG? What will you select and why?

Bitdefender is fine , its a good lightweight AV but a bit lacking in features vs Avast FREE , AVG is a little bit more bloated i would choose Avast free ( Only mentioning avast in this topic cause AVG is so similiar and avira is also owned by norton like AVG / AVAST )
Microsoft defender works fine if you are fine with the slow reaction and questionable decisions on samples.

 

[lokamoka820]

Bitdefender is fine , its a good lightweight AV but a bit lacking in features vs Avast FREE , AVG is a little bit more bloated i would choose Avast free ( Only mentioning avast in this topic cause AVG is so similiar and avira is also owned by norton like AVG / AVAST )
Microsoft defender works fine if you are fine with the slow reaction and questionable decisions on samples.

What features Avast have over Bitdefender? I know it have more shields, but if you install the minimum protection, which is (File, behavior and web shields) will there be any difference?

 

[ForgottenSeer 109138]

Microsoft defender works fine if you are fine with the slow reaction and questionable decisions on samples.

Can you please link a reference for a credible real world testing "testing full route of infection accurately" , done with, in the wild samples that show case this "slow reaction and questionable decisions" you speak of.

 

[monkeylove]

When you say something works well because you didn't see or feel anything, then that doesn't necessarily mean it's working well. And when you argue that you can always make sure by using secondary scanners, then that goes against your belief that what you're using is good enough.

About having to tweak Microsoft Security, consider the reasons why Microsoft has to make you do that. In short, figure out why they didn't activate those settings to be tweaked by default.

For web protection, some here say that it's not needed for the AV to provide that; instead, add it yourself using a security addon. Others argue that that might not be good enough if the addon won't check using heuristics. In addition, some features that are part of web protection might interfere with other software, like Adguard for Desktop.

I'm not sure, but I think Bitdefender free doesn't include ransomware remediation.

If you add more features, then it might increase systems impact.

Finally, you can also look at results of tests done by Youtubers and by companies. For example, go to

Comparison

www.av-comparatives.org

and check results for real-world protection, malware protection, and performance, and sort by protection or performance value. You'd be looking for security programs that do better overall for the three. (Keep in mind, too, that results may change after several months.)

It's up to you to determine what weight to give for each. For me, performance is more important, so it's either Kaspersky, Avast, or AVG.

If you consider additional features needed for protection, then for free ones you can probably consider AVG or Avast.

 

[Jan Willy]

it doesn`t seem to do as well in independant tests.

This quote is about MD. I'm curious which tests you mean.

 

[Behold Eck]

This quote is about MD. I'm curious which tests you mea

This quote is about MD. I'm curious which tests you mean.

Ask Google.

Regards Eck

 

[ForgottenSeer 109138]

Ask Google.

Regards Eck

I asked Gemini from Google this exact question.

"Is Microsoft Defender good enough to keep users safe if they have good habits"

Gemini's response.

Microsoft Defender can be a good security solution, especially for users who practice good online habits. Here's a breakdown:


Strengths of Microsoft Defender:

• Effective Protection: Independent tests show it has a high detection rate for malware, including zero-day threats [refer to Microsoft Defender Review].
• Free and Built-in: It comes pre-installed with Windows, saving you money and avoiding compatibility issues.
• Regular Updates: Microsoft frequently updates Defender to stay ahead of new threats.

Considerations:

• Limited Features: Compared to some paid antivirus software, Defender might lack features like advanced phishing protection or identity theft monitoring.
• Potential False Positives: Some users report occasional inaccurate scans flagging harmless programs.

Good Online Habits for Added Security:

• Careful Browsing: Avoid clicking suspicious links or downloading from unknown sources.
• Software Updates: Keep your operating system and software updated to patch security vulnerabilities.
• Strong Passwords: Use unique and strong passwords for all your accounts and enable two-factor authentication when available.

Overall:


For users with good online habits, Microsoft Defender offers a solid foundation for security.


Here are some additional points to consider:

• Advanced Needs: If you frequently access high-risk websites, work with sensitive data, or game online competitively, a third-party antivirus with additional features might be beneficial.
• Independent Reviews: Research antivirus software reviews to compare features and pricing before making a decision.

Ultimately, the best security solution combines good user habits with a reliable antivirus program.

 

[Behold Eck]

I asked Gemini from Google this exact question.

"Is Microsoft Defender good enough to keep users safe if they have good habits"

Gemini's response.

Same goes for AVG/Avast Free and Avira Free if you have "good habits".

Regards Eck

 

[lokamoka820]

When you say something works well because you didn't see or feel anything, then that doesn't necessarily mean it's working well. And when you argue that you can always make sure by using secondary scanners, then that goes against your belief that what you're using is good enough.

About having to tweak Microsoft Security, consider the reasons why Microsoft has to make you do that. In short, figure out why they didn't activate those settings to be tweaked by default.

For web protection, some here say that it's not needed for the AV to provide that; instead, add it yourself using a security addon. Others argue that that might not be good enough if the addon won't check using heuristics. In addition, some features that are part of web protection might interfere with other software, like Adguard for Desktop.

I'm not sure, but I think Bitdefender free doesn't include ransomware remediation.

If you add more features, then it might increase systems impact.

Finally, you can also look at results of tests done by Youtubers and by companies. For example, go to

Comparison

www.av-comparatives.org

and check results for real-world protection, malware protection, and performance, and sort by protection or performance value. You'd be looking for security programs that do better overall for the three. (Keep in mind, too, that results may change after several months.)

It's up to you to determine what weight to give for each. For me, performance is more important, so it's either Kaspersky, Avast, or AVG.

If you consider additional features needed for protection, then for free ones you can probably consider AVG or Avast.

Thanks for your detailed answer. For me its performance > usability (less false positive) > protection.

 

[likeastar20]

AVG, simple

 

[Jan Willy]

Ask Google.

Regards Eck

Indeed and I'm capable to screen out FUD.

 

[Shadowra]

Microsoft Defender.
Lightweight, the AI is quite responsive.
You can even optimize it with @Andy Ful 's WHHLight.

 

[Behold Eck]

Indeed and I'm capable to screen out FUD.

Good for you.

Bye the way I actually think MD is good enough on it`s own these days without any tweeking for a careful user. It has come a long way from the early days.

Regards Eck

 

[Shadowra]

Nice, what is your thoughts about Bitdefender free compared to Avast/AVG? What will you select and why?

Bitdefender has better detection than Avast/AVG .
One of the few that gives me a clean VM!
(it has AV-C, a fairly powerful behavioral blocker)

 

[lokamoka820]

Bitdefender has better detection than Avast/AVG .
One of the few that gives me a clean VM!
(it has AV-C, a fairly powerful behavioral blocker)

Is the free version of Bitdefender better than Microsoft Defender?