Avira or Bitdefender engine?

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
Hello!
In my second PC, I decided to install 360 TSE 6.6 and give it a try again.
I left all Qihoo engines at defaults but I 'm not sure which one to leave enabled. I don't want both of them as my system will slow down.

So, which of the two thrid party engine you suggest that I should keep enabled (Avira, BD)?
Which is best in terms of:
1)Detection
2)Use of system resources (disk, cpu, ram)
3)False positives.

Thank you. :)

PS: There is a similar thread, but I posted a seperate because of the post date/newer product version.
 

Anupam

Level 21
If you are connected to internet most of the time then enabling them won't make a difference.
If you need more offline protection then you may enable them. Here is what you asked for

1. Detection - Bitdefender better ( My opinion. Avira lovers don't kill me :p )
2. System resource usage -- Avira engine uses less system resource. .
3. False Positive - Bitdefender has more false positive.

Choice is yours.
 

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
Thank you.. Both seem to be similar in terms of system snappiness but I want as less disk & cpu usage as possible along with the others I mentioned.
Ram is not such an issue for me.

As my system is mostly online and this makes choice between the two a bit unimportant for detection, I prefer less fp's and less resource usage so, maybe Avira is for me. :)
 
S

Sr. Normal

No, I think not. Qihoo is, for me, the best AV free .

It will informed you about the security patches you need and its defense works very well, another thing is the FPS (too much), but its architecture does not preclude an excellent defense.
 

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
No, I think not. Qihoo is, for me, the best AV free .

It will informed you about the security patches you need and its defense works very well, another thing is the FPS (too much), but its architecture does not preclude an excellent defense.
When you say false positives you talk about more or less known programs/windows files or only apps that few people use;
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sr. Normal
S

Sr. Normal

When you say false positives you talk about more or less known programs/windows files or only apps that few people use;

I talk about mathematics. :eek: If an antivirus with one engine has FPs, an antivirus with 4 or 5 must has more. ;)

I love this AV, which have enjoyed years, but now I do not want to use it like a protest for it ethics policy.
They assume that they have rights that I do not think so. But again, it is, for me, the best AV free.

As for their FP, I recommend adding the page Virustotal to you bookmarks for when you have a doubt. It has more FPs because it has more detection, basic math, I think :cool:
 

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
I talk about mathematics. :eek: If an antivirus with one engine has FPs, an antivirus with 4 or 5 must has more. ;)

I love this AV, which have enjoyed years, but now I do not want to use it like a protest for it ethics policy.
They assume that they have rights that I do not think so. But again, it is, for me, the best AV free.

As for their FP, I recommend adding the page Virustotal to you bookmarks for when you have a doubt. It has more FPs because it has more detection, basic math, I think :cool:
In fact Avira has few fp's, what i wondering about was Qihoo's engines FP's.
What's different about Qihoo and other AV's. Most of them collect info, the difference is who is the receiver of this data. Others are US, others EU countries, others China (Qihoo).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sr. Normal

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
There are many inconsistent in terms of detection capabilities via signature:

1) Independent organizations like AV-Comparatives shows Bitdefender < Avira; however on the other hand is opposite for AV-Test.org.

FP rates: Bitdefender < Avira and other case Avira < Bitdefender.

2) Malware Hub test @MT shows more better from Bitdefender than Avira.

But what's the point here? Bitdefender and Avira can go well as they have pretty good database signatures but in such nature it differ on FP + optimize performance for Qihoo

The percentage that Qihoo main engine is very effective and when two engines included which will only add 1% to 3%.
 

Nikos751

Level 17
Verified
There are many inconsistent in terms of detection capabilities via signature:

1) Independent organizations like AV-Comparatives shows Bitdefender < Avira; however on the other hand is opposite for AV-Test.org.

FP rates: Bitdefender < Avira and other case Avira < Bitdefender.

2) Malware Hub test @MT shows more better from Bitdefender than Avira.

But what's the point here? Bitdefender and Avira can go well as they have pretty good database signatures but in such nature it differ on FP + optimize performance for Qihoo

The percentage that Qihoo main engine is very effective and when two engines included which will only add 1% to 3%.
Very informative thanks
 

LahiruTarz

Level 3
If you have an always on internet connection, there is no need to enable either. Because 360 Cloud has better detection rate than BD & Avira combined. However, if you're mostly offline, you can have one or both engines enabled. It's hard to choose one over the other, but keep in mind that Avira is lighter on memory & BD has exceptional scores in AV Tests.
 

WinXPert

Level 24
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Unless you are not living in the Philippines, go with BD. Nothing against BD. Avira have a better detection rate when it comes to locally made worms.

Low on memory, turn both off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top