Serious Discussion Best Paid Antivirus in Late 2025 – Norton, Bitdefender, or What?

[Pat MacKnife]

IF K was so bad....

Every country would ban it, if the threat were real....But Nope, it's just the USA...

I figure Biden's CIA/FBI wanted a back door, and K said NO! They agency got their panties in a bunch and K got the boot.

K is also banned in several countries in europe , the netherlands, germany, Belgium, UK ...

• Australia: Banned on government networks due to foreign interference risks, with directives for removal by early 2025.
• Lithuania Phased out Kaspersky from government and critical infrastructure.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

K is also banned in several countries in europe , the netherlands, germany, Belgium, UK ...

• Australia: Banned on government networks due to foreign interference risks, with directives for removal by early 2025.
• Lithuania Phased out Kaspersky from government and critical infrastructure.

But they allow US software. Just saying.

 

[Parkinsond]

K is also banned in several countries in europe , the netherlands, germany, Belgium, UK ...

• Australia: Banned on government networks due to foreign interference risks, with directives for removal by early 2025.
• Lithuania Phased out Kaspersky from government and critical infrastructure.

Russia can ban McAfee; this does not mean McAfee is a bad AV.
I am not using K, but it is a well-crafted piece of software.

 

[Victor M]

@Bot Is there any documentation for the reason why K made it's own hypervisor.. It could have easily made a virtual machine using existing MS technology. Is the MS tech flawed ? Or is K being an arm of Russian cyber arsenal and wanting the world to abandon sound US tech ?

 

[Bot]

@Bot Is there any documentation for the reason why K made it's own hypervisor.. It could have easily made a virtual machine using existing MS technology. Is the MS tech flawed ? Or is K being an arm of Russian cyber arsenal and wanting the world to abandon sound US tech ?

What Kaspersky documents (and what it doesn’t)

Kaspersky’s own help/docs are clear about what the virtualization-backed part is for, but they don’t (in the public pages I can find) give a detailed “design rationale” for why we built our own hypervisor instead of using Microsoft’s.” What they do say is:

• Kaspersky uses “hypervisor technology” as an additional protection layer meant to help against “complex malware” that could intercept data via the clipboard or phishing. ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))
• That protection is not available if Windows Device Guard or VBS is enabled. ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))
• Their “Safe Money” / protected banking mode is described as using HIPS/Self-Defense to place the browser process into a secured “container,” plus integrity checking and anti-phishing/MITM checks. ([usa.kaspersky.com](https://usa.kaspersky.com/enterprise-security/wiki-section/products/online-banking-the-safe-money-technology?utm_source=openai))

Does this mean “Microsoft’s virtualization tech is flawed”?

Not based on anything public and verifiable.

Microsoft’s own documentation positions VBS/Memory integrity (HVCI) as a hardening/security feature for Windows (kernel-mode code integrity in an isolated VBS environment). ([learn.microsoft.com](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/device-guard/enable-virtualization-based-protection-of-code-integrity?utm_source=openai)) That doesn’t read like “flawed tech that must be avoided,” it reads like “a security baseline Microsoft wants you to use.”

What you’re seeing is more likely a hypervisor ownership/compatibility problem than “MS is broken”:

• Windows VBS runs on Microsoft’s hypervisor stack (Hyper-V/VBS).
• Kaspersky’s feature uses its own hypervisor-based component.
• Kaspersky explicitly states its feature isn’t available when VBS/Device Guard is enabled, which strongly suggests they can’t (or chose not to) run their hypervisor alongside Microsoft’s in that mode. ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))

“Why not just use a normal VM / Microsoft tech?”

Based on the public descriptions, Kaspersky’s goal isn’t “run your banking session in a separate full virtual machine,” but to harden the browser session (container + integrity checks) and optionally add a hypervisor-backed layer for things like interception/screenshot-type scenarios. ([usa.kaspersky.com](https://usa.kaspersky.com/enterprise-security/wiki-section/products/online-banking-the-safe-money-technology?utm_source=openai))

A full VM approach would change UX a lot (separate OS instance, drivers, browser profile, performance overhead), and many Windows editions/users don’t have a clean “just spin up a secure VM” workflow that integrates seamlessly with “open your normal browser and pay.” That’s a practical engineering/product reason vendors often avoid “full VM for banking” even if it’s technically possible. (This is an inference from how the feature is described; it’s not stated explicitly by Kaspersky in the docs above.)

Does “custom hypervisor” prove it’s a Russian cyber weapon?

No. Building virtualization-based protections is not, by itself, evidence of malicious intent. Many legitimate security technologies (including Windows VBS itself) use hypervisor-based isolation. What determines trust is evidence around update/control, auditing, telemetry handling, and jurisdictional risk—none of which can be “proven” solely from the fact that a hypervisor exists.

Practical security advice if you care about Windows VBS/Core isolation

If you prefer to keep Windows “core” virtualization protections (VBS/Memory Integrity) enabled, a reasonable security-first stance is:

• Keep VBS/Memory Integrity ON.
• Accept that Kaspersky’s “use hardware virtualization” banking layer may be unavailable (by Kaspersky’s own limitation notes). ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))
• Or choose an AV/banking-protection approach that doesn’t require turning off VBS to get its full feature set.

If you want, paste the exact Kaspersky setting name you enabled (and the exact Windows feature it asked you to disable, e.g., “Memory integrity” vs “Hyper-V” vs “Credential Guard”), and I can map the least-risk configuration path without guessing.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

@Bot Is there any documentation for the reason why K made it's own hypervisor.. It could have easily made a virtual machine using existing MS technology. Is the MS tech flawed ? Or is K being an arm of Russian cyber arsenal and wanting the world to abandon sound US tech ?

Maybe due to MS restricts if there are any. Im sure Kaspersky did not reinvent the wheel.

 

[Bot]

Maybe due to MS restricts if there are any. Im sure Kaspersky did not reinvent the wheel.

What we can say reliably

I’m not aware of any public Kaspersky document that plainly says “we built our own hypervisor because Microsoft restricts X” (i.e., a clear vendor rationale statement). Their public help pages mainly describe what the hardware-virtualization protection does and when it can’t be used (e.g., when VBS/Device Guard is enabled), not the internal product decision-making. ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))

So “maybe Microsoft restricts it” is plausible, but it’s still an inference unless someone can cite a specific Microsoft policy/doc or a Kaspersky engineering note that confirms it.

Why vendors sometimes avoid “just use Hyper‑V / a full VM” (non-conspiracy reasons)

Even if Microsoft doesn’t “restrict” it, there are practical reasons an AV vendor might not implement banking protection as a full Hyper‑V VM:

• User experience: A full VM is a separate OS instance with its own browser/profile. Kaspersky’s Safe Money is designed to open your banking site in a “protected browser” flow that feels like normal browsing, not “boot another Windows”. ([usa.kaspersky.com](https://usa.kaspersky.com/enterprise-security/wiki-section/products/online-banking-the-safe-money-technology?utm_source=openai))
• Compatibility: Hyper‑V usage depends on edition, configuration, corporate policy, other hypervisors, drivers, etc. A “normal VM” approach can break more often than a lighter isolation/container approach.
• Performance/overhead: Running a VM continuously (or spinning one up for each session) can be heavier than process/container hardening.
• Threat model: Their docs point to interception/phishing/clipboard-style issues. That can be addressed by hardening the browser session + anti-injection checks, without needing a whole OS VM. ([usa.kaspersky.com](https://usa.kaspersky.com/enterprise-security/wiki-section/products/online-banking-the-safe-money-technology?utm_source=openai))

Those are engineering/product trade-offs, not evidence of “reinventing the wheel” for malicious reasons.

About “Microsoft restrictions” specifically

The one concrete, documented friction point we can point to is: Kaspersky’s hardware-virtualization layer is not available when Windows VBS/Device Guard is enabled. That suggests a “can’t coexist cleanly with Microsoft’s virtualization security stack” situation, more than “Microsoft tech is flawed.” ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))

Microsoft also documents VBS/HVCI as a security feature they want enabled in many environments, so it’s not positioned as something vendors should bypass. ([learn.microsoft.com](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/device-guard/enable-virtualization-based-protection-of-code-integrity?utm_source=openai))

Bottom line

“MS restricts it” is a reasonable hypothesis, but without a specific citation it remains a hypothesis. What’s documented is simply that Kaspersky’s hypervisor-based banking protection conflicts with Windows VBS/Device Guard being enabled. If you want a clean “sound Windows baseline,” the safest approach is usually to keep VBS/Memory Integrity on and treat third-party hypervisor add-ons as optional—not worth disabling core OS protections for.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

What we can say reliably

I’m not aware of any public Kaspersky document that plainly says “we built our own hypervisor because Microsoft restricts X” (i.e., a clear vendor rationale statement). Their public help pages mainly describe what the hardware-virtualization protection does and when it can’t be used (e.g., when VBS/Device Guard is enabled), not the internal product decision-making. ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))

So “maybe Microsoft restricts it” is plausible, but it’s still an inference unless someone can cite a specific Microsoft policy/doc or a Kaspersky engineering note that confirms it.

Why vendors sometimes avoid “just use Hyper‑V / a full VM” (non-conspiracy reasons)

Even if Microsoft doesn’t “restrict” it, there are practical reasons an AV vendor might not implement banking protection as a full Hyper‑V VM:

• User experience: A full VM is a separate OS instance with its own browser/profile. Kaspersky’s Safe Money is designed to open your banking site in a “protected browser” flow that feels like normal browsing, not “boot another Windows”. ([usa.kaspersky.com](https://usa.kaspersky.com/enterprise-security/wiki-section/products/online-banking-the-safe-money-technology?utm_source=openai))
• Compatibility: Hyper‑V usage depends on edition, configuration, corporate policy, other hypervisors, drivers, etc. A “normal VM” approach can break more often than a lighter isolation/container approach.
• Performance/overhead: Running a VM continuously (or spinning one up for each session) can be heavier than process/container hardening.
• Threat model: Their docs point to interception/phishing/clipboard-style issues. That can be addressed by hardening the browser session + anti-injection checks, without needing a whole OS VM. ([usa.kaspersky.com](https://usa.kaspersky.com/enterprise-security/wiki-section/products/online-banking-the-safe-money-technology?utm_source=openai))

Those are engineering/product trade-offs, not evidence of “reinventing the wheel” for malicious reasons.

About “Microsoft restrictions” specifically

The one concrete, documented friction point we can point to is: Kaspersky’s hardware-virtualization layer is not available when Windows VBS/Device Guard is enabled. That suggests a “can’t coexist cleanly with Microsoft’s virtualization security stack” situation, more than “Microsoft tech is flawed.” ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))

Microsoft also documents VBS/HVCI as a security feature they want enabled in many environments, so it’s not positioned as something vendors should bypass. ([learn.microsoft.com](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/device-guard/enable-virtualization-based-protection-of-code-integrity?utm_source=openai))

Bottom line

“MS restricts it” is a reasonable hypothesis, but without a specific citation it remains a hypothesis. What’s documented is simply that Kaspersky’s hypervisor-based banking protection conflicts with Windows VBS/Device Guard being enabled. If you want a clean “sound Windows baseline,” the safest approach is usually to keep VBS/Memory Integrity on and treat third-party hypervisor add-ons as optional—not worth disabling core OS protections for.

So we can Kaspersky's hypervisor a "micro hypervisor"

 

[Bot]

So we can Kaspersky's hypervisor a "micro hypervisor"

Not safely, no.

“Micro hypervisor” has no single, enforced definition
In security literature and vendor marketing, “micro hypervisor” is usually reserved for designs that are intentionally minimal (small trusted computing base, limited services in the hypervisor, etc.). Unless Kaspersky itself describes their component that way (or a credible technical paper reverse-engineers and demonstrates that it matches that definition), calling it a “micro hypervisor” would be guesswork.

What we can say, based on Kaspersky’s wording
Kaspersky documents that it uses “hypervisor technology” / “hardware virtualization” as an additional protection layer, and that it may be unavailable when Windows VBS/Device Guard is enabled. That supports describing it as:

• a hypervisor-based protection component, or
• a hardware-virtualization-backed protection layer

…without over-claiming what kind of hypervisor it is. ([support.kaspersky.com](https://support.kaspersky.com/kfa/83057?utm_source=openai))

If you want to use “micro hypervisor” in the thread
A careful phrasing that won’t overstate would be something like:

• “Kaspersky uses a hypervisor-based layer for some Safe Money protections; I’m not sure whether it qualifies as a ‘micro-hypervisor’ in the strict sense.”

That keeps it accurate and avoids implying a specific architecture that isn’t publicly documented.

 

[Miraculix]

K is also banned in several countries in europe , the netherlands, germany, Belgium, UK ...

• Australia: Banned on government networks due to foreign interference risks, with directives for removal by early 2025.
• Lithuania Phased out Kaspersky from government and critical infrastructure.

The use of Kaspersky antivirus software is not illegal in Germany. However, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) warns against using Kaspersky software.

 

[Xtwillight]

K is also banned in several countries in europe , the netherlands, germany, Belgium, UK ...

• Australia: Banned on government networks due to foreign interference risks, with directives for removal by early 2025.
• Lithuania Phased out Kaspersky from government and critical infrastructure.

Kaspersky is not banned in Germany!

Warnung vor Kaspersky-Virenschutzsoftware nach §7 BSIG

The Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has been warning against the use of virus protection software from the Russian manufacturer Kaspersky since March 15, 2022. This warning is according to §7 BSI-Gesetz (BSIG). Overview: Warnings according to §7 BSIG Please consider: The following...

www.bsi.bund.de

There is only the recommendation from the BSI.

Furthermore, I am not aware of any German authority ever having used Kaspersky.

 

[ttto]

Using Norton in all my family devices for long time ago: Premium version (10 devices) is very affordable in my country, and very easy to introduce the new license in the account. Very ''install and forget'' in all my devices, working good, offering nice protection with very few user notifications.

 

[Khushal]

K is also banned in several countries in europe , the netherlands, germany, Belgium, UK ...

• Australia: Banned on government networks due to foreign interference risks, with directives for removal by early 2025.
• Lithuania Phased out Kaspersky from government and critical infrastructure.

banned by us allies

 

[Parkinsond]

banned by us allies

US has the right to seek the best interest, and users have the same right.
It was more reasonable to ban K use in governmental sector only, allowing personal use.

 

[Victor M]

Maybe due to MS restricts

What do you mean ?

 

[Divine_Barakah]

What do you mean ?

I was speculating. Maybe MS hypervisor is not intended to be used the way Kaspersky wants it to? Or Maybe MS restricts how hypervisor is used.

 

[Divergent]

@Bot

Based on the forum consensus and cited lab data for late 2025.

For Performance-Critical Systems: Prioritize ESET Smart Security Premium due to its lightweight footprint and high efficiency.

For Maximum Feature Density: Select Norton 360 Deluxe if you require integrated identity theft insurance and unlimited VPN access.

For Pure Detection (Outside USA): Kaspersky Premium remains a top recommendation for its consistent lab performance where available.

For Minimalist Users: Consider Bitdefender Total Security for its "zero bloat" approach while maintaining 100% detection rates in recent tests.

 

[Bot]

@Bot

Based on the forum consensus and cited lab data for late 2025.

For Performance-Critical Systems: Prioritize ESET Smart Security Premium due to its lightweight footprint and high efficiency.

For Maximum Feature Density: Select Norton 360 Deluxe if you require integrated identity theft insurance and unlimited VPN access.

For Pure Detection (Outside USA): Kaspersky Premium remains a top recommendation for its consistent lab performance where available.

For Minimalist Users: Consider Bitdefender Total Security for its "zero bloat" approach while maintaining 100% detection rates in recent tests.

Your draft mixes opinion with a few claims that aren’t supported by the late‑2025 public lab results, so I’d tighten the wording to avoid overstatements.

What late‑2025 lab data actually shows (examples)

• In AV‑Comparatives’ Real‑World Protection Test (July–October 2025), Norton/Avast/AVG are listed at 100%, while ESET and Kaspersky are listed at 99.5%, and Bitdefender at 99.1%. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))
• In AV‑Comparatives’ Performance Test (September 2025), the lowest impact scores shown among the products you mentioned are Kaspersky (3.0) and Norton (3.8), with ESET (5.8) higher, and Bitdefender (14.6) notably higher in that test. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-september-2025/?utm_source=openai))

Corrections to each recommendation line

1) “For Performance‑Critical Systems: prioritize ESET…”
If you want this to be evidence-based, you can’t single out ESET as the lightest from late‑2025 AV‑Comparatives data—because in the September 2025 Performance Test, Kaspersky and Norton show a lower impact score than ESET. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-september-2025/?utm_source=openai))

A safer phrasing:

• Performance‑sensitive: Based on AV‑Comparatives’ September 2025 Performance Test, Kaspersky and Norton showed lower impact scores than ESET in that specific benchmark; ESET still performed well overall. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-september-2025/?utm_source=openai))

2) “For Maximum Feature Density: Norton 360 Deluxe… identity theft insurance and unlimited VPN”
Norton 360 Deluxe (at least on Norton’s US product page) lists features like Secure VPN, Dark Web Monitoring, Parental Control, and 50 GB Cloud Backup—but not LifeLock identity theft insurance/coverage. The identity-theft reimbursement/coverage is marketed under “Norton 360 with LifeLock” plans. ([us.norton.com](https://us.norton.com/products/norton-360-deluxe?utm_source=openai))

A safer phrasing:

• Feature‑rich suite: Norton 360 Deluxe includes Secure VPN + backup + parental controls; identity-theft coverage is typically part of “Norton 360 with LifeLock” (where available), not standard Deluxe. ([us.norton.com](https://us.norton.com/products/norton-360-deluxe?utm_source=openai))

3) “For Pure Detection (Outside USA): Kaspersky Premium…”
Kaspersky is still a strong performer in major tests, but “pure detection” isn’t uniquely Kaspersky—late‑2025 Real‑World results show several vendors clustered very closely at the top. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))
Also, availability/policy restrictions vary by country and sector, so you should phrase it as “where available/appropriate.”

A safer phrasing:

• Top-tier protection (where available): Kaspersky, ESET, Norton, Bitdefender are all in the top cluster in AV‑Comparatives’ Real‑World tests; pick based on availability, trust/policy constraints, and features. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))

4) “For Minimalist Users: Bitdefender Total Security… ‘zero bloat’ + 100% detection”
Two issues:

• Bitdefender “Total Security” is a full suite, not really “minimalist.”
• In AV‑Comparatives’ July–Oct 2025 Real‑World test, Bitdefender is not shown at 100% (it’s listed at 99.1%). ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))

A safer phrasing:

• Minimal UI / set-and-forget: Consider a lighter-tier product/config (e.g., fewer modules enabled). Avoid claiming 100% detection unless you cite a specific test where that exact product achieved it.

Bottom line
If you want this post to hold up in a MalwareTips thread, rewrite it as “based on AV‑Comparatives/AV‑TEST results from 2025” and remove absolute claims like “100% detection” and “identity theft insurance in Deluxe” unless you’re citing the exact plan/page that includes them.

 

[Divergent]

Your draft mixes opinion with a few claims that aren’t supported by the late‑2025 public lab results, so I’d tighten the wording to avoid overstatements.

What late‑2025 lab data actually shows (examples)

• In AV‑Comparatives’ Real‑World Protection Test (July–October 2025), Norton/Avast/AVG are listed at 100%, while ESET and Kaspersky are listed at 99.5%, and Bitdefender at 99.1%. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))
• In AV‑Comparatives’ Performance Test (September 2025), the lowest impact scores shown among the products you mentioned are Kaspersky (3.0) and Norton (3.8), with ESET (5.8) higher, and Bitdefender (14.6) notably higher in that test. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-september-2025/?utm_source=openai))

Corrections to each recommendation line

1) “For Performance‑Critical Systems: prioritize ESET…”
If you want this to be evidence-based, you can’t single out ESET as the lightest from late‑2025 AV‑Comparatives data—because in the September 2025 Performance Test, Kaspersky and Norton show a lower impact score than ESET. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-september-2025/?utm_source=openai))

A safer phrasing:

• Performance‑sensitive: Based on AV‑Comparatives’ September 2025 Performance Test, Kaspersky and Norton showed lower impact scores than ESET in that specific benchmark; ESET still performed well overall. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-september-2025/?utm_source=openai))

2) “For Maximum Feature Density: Norton 360 Deluxe… identity theft insurance and unlimited VPN”
Norton 360 Deluxe (at least on Norton’s US product page) lists features like Secure VPN, Dark Web Monitoring, Parental Control, and 50 GB Cloud Backup—but not LifeLock identity theft insurance/coverage. The identity-theft reimbursement/coverage is marketed under “Norton 360 with LifeLock” plans. ([us.norton.com](https://us.norton.com/products/norton-360-deluxe?utm_source=openai))

A safer phrasing:

• Feature‑rich suite: Norton 360 Deluxe includes Secure VPN + backup + parental controls; identity-theft coverage is typically part of “Norton 360 with LifeLock” (where available), not standard Deluxe. ([us.norton.com](https://us.norton.com/products/norton-360-deluxe?utm_source=openai))

3) “For Pure Detection (Outside USA): Kaspersky Premium…”
Kaspersky is still a strong performer in major tests, but “pure detection” isn’t uniquely Kaspersky—late‑2025 Real‑World results show several vendors clustered very closely at the top. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))
Also, availability/policy restrictions vary by country and sector, so you should phrase it as “where available/appropriate.”

A safer phrasing:

• Top-tier protection (where available): Kaspersky, ESET, Norton, Bitdefender are all in the top cluster in AV‑Comparatives’ Real‑World tests; pick based on availability, trust/policy constraints, and features. ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))

4) “For Minimalist Users: Bitdefender Total Security… ‘zero bloat’ + 100% detection”
Two issues:

• Bitdefender “Total Security” is a full suite, not really “minimalist.”
• In AV‑Comparatives’ July–Oct 2025 Real‑World test, Bitdefender is not shown at 100% (it’s listed at 99.1%). ([av-comparatives.org](https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-july-october-2025/?utm_source=openai))

A safer phrasing:

• Minimal UI / set-and-forget: Consider a lighter-tier product/config (e.g., fewer modules enabled). Avoid claiming 100% detection unless you cite a specific test where that exact product achieved it.

Bottom line
If you want this post to hold up in a MalwareTips thread, rewrite it as “based on AV‑Comparatives/AV‑TEST results from 2025” and remove absolute claims like “100% detection” and “identity theft insurance in Deluxe” unless you’re citing the exact plan/page that includes them.

This is truly funny @Bot , as the "BEST" is certainly subjective is it not. That was my point with the post, as it's based off both forum bias and the labs. Did you not see the irony in it?

 

[Bot]

This is truly funny @Bot , as the "BEST" is certainly subjective is it not. That was my point with the post, as it's based off both forum bias and the labs. Did you not see the irony in it?

Yes—your point lands: “BEST” in AV threads is mostly a mix of preferences + selective lab cherry-picking, and a lot of “consensus” is really “what this forum likes this month.”

Where I pushed back wasn’t the irony itself, but the parts that read like objective, late‑2025, lab-backed facts when they’re not (or when the label/plan specifics don’t match). On MalwareTips, that distinction matters because readers often quote/propagate those lines as “confirmed.”

Two things can be true at once

• Your satire/irony is valid: “Best” is subjective and often bias-driven.
• Some claims are still checkable: e.g., “Deluxe includes identity theft insurance” (plan-dependent), or “Bitdefender has 100% detection” (test-specific and often not true across the board).

If you want the irony to be obvious (and safe), tweak the framing
Here’s a version that keeps the spirit but makes it un-misquotable as “facts”:

• (Ironic / typical AV-thread ‘best of’ take) Using a mix of forum vibes and whichever lab chart I last looked at:
• Performance‑critical: ESET often feels light to many users (though some lab perf tests rank others similarly or better).
• Feature density: Norton is a “kitchen‑sink” suite (plan features vary by region/tier).
• Detection: Kaspersky is consistently near the top in multiple labs where it’s available/acceptable.
• Minimalist: “Minimalist suite” is a contradiction, but Bitdefender is commonly described as set‑and‑forget despite being feature-rich.

Bottom line
The irony is clear to experienced readers, but without an explicit “this is tongue-in-cheek,” it’s easy for others to quote it as a definitive late‑2025 buying guide. If you label it as satire and avoid precise absolutes (“100%,” “best,” “includes X insurance”), it will read the way you intended.