Bitdefender 2013 vs Comodo Internet Security 5.12
- Thread starter .Sam.
- Start date
House_maniac
Level 1
- Sep 21, 2011
- 426
it depends on you i prefer comodo you have more options and you can set it up the way you want as bit defender is more of an install and forget option something which is not for me! but both are good but sure comodo is lighter than bitdefender which can delay your boot up time by 2 3 s
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
Comodo 5.12 was released so it could be used on Windows 8, as you have already stated. So is this for Windows 8 users only?
Never used either on Windows 8, so I cannot comment further, except BitDefender and Comodo both take different approaches to protecting your PC.
Never used either on Windows 8, so I cannot comment further, except BitDefender and Comodo both take different approaches to protecting your PC.
- Feb 23, 2012
- 511
- Feb 23, 2012
- 511
@ Earth
you are right but
I have noticed that when i used to install any paid antivirus on some of my friends computers they always used to get infected at one point or the other within 1 month some even after 2-3 days of use and i again had to make their computers usable which was a head ache so i some how convinced them and installed CIS and it did wonders its now almost 6 months and out of 8 of my friends on which i installed CIS 6 remain infection free till today and only 2 were infected so i was called but comodo protected them for period of 3-4 months until they got infected somehow
so from that moment i only install CIS on friends and family computers so that i dont have to deal with infection all the time
But i still install paid antivirus suites on customers computers since i feel if i install CIS for them then they too would not get infected often and then i wont get my pay (It may be selfish of me but customers also want a paid suite instead of free when they are paying
)
Note:-
All My friends and customers mostly get infected due to downloads from a file sharing client which they love more than anything Called DC++
you are right but
I have noticed that when i used to install any paid antivirus on some of my friends computers they always used to get infected at one point or the other within 1 month some even after 2-3 days of use and i again had to make their computers usable which was a head ache so i some how convinced them and installed CIS and it did wonders its now almost 6 months and out of 8 of my friends on which i installed CIS 6 remain infection free till today and only 2 were infected so i was called but comodo protected them for period of 3-4 months until they got infected somehow
so from that moment i only install CIS on friends and family computers so that i dont have to deal with infection all the time
But i still install paid antivirus suites on customers computers since i feel if i install CIS for them then they too would not get infected often and then i wont get my pay (It may be selfish of me but customers also want a paid suite instead of free when they are paying
)Note:-
All My friends and customers mostly get infected due to downloads from a file sharing client which they love more than anything Called DC++
- Oct 22, 2011
- 860
Honestly, As much as I like Comodo and that its free but in terms of Protection I think Bitdefender wins.
Comodo is dependent mostly on Defense+ and when I test Comodo without D+ its detection is average and it gets a good amount of FP's. Many people do disable D+ because of the nag and I noticed it in personal experiences on working with computers with comodo.
Bitdefender has amazing detections with little FP and doesn't depend on a HIPS if you have it disabled.
and I'm really tired of people choosing a product because its "Free" in the war room. Yes its free but what about protection, user friendly, memory usage, etc.
Comodo is dependent mostly on Defense+ and when I test Comodo without D+ its detection is average and it gets a good amount of FP's. Many people do disable D+ because of the nag and I noticed it in personal experiences on working with computers with comodo.
Bitdefender has amazing detections with little FP and doesn't depend on a HIPS if you have it disabled.
and I'm really tired of people choosing a product because its "Free" in the war room. Yes its free but what about protection, user friendly, memory usage, etc.
- Feb 23, 2012
- 511
@ 3link9
Its not about Free vs Paid its about protection
In terms of detection I would go with Bitdefender
In terms of prevention I would go with Comodo for its defence+
yes comodo has FP more than Bitdefender but again I would like to ask you would you go with a product mainly for its detection or how well is it in prevention against unknown stuff cause sooner or later the antivirus will detect the malware when it has signatures for it or due to heuristics but what about the time when it does not have a signature for the malware how does it protect the user then
I am not saying that Bitdefender is worst than Comodo but at default settings and with autopilot it is not the best at protection rather than detection
EDIT
I just Noticed that the person who started this thread is an advanced user http://malwaretips.com/Thread-NZS92-config
so i suppose he is more than capable of configuring both bitdefender and comodo at its best , It would be better if the person tested both the suites and draw to the conclusion according to his needs since comparing both the products is a never ending discussion
Thanks
Its not about Free vs Paid its about protection
In terms of detection I would go with Bitdefender
In terms of prevention I would go with Comodo for its defence+
yes comodo has FP more than Bitdefender but again I would like to ask you would you go with a product mainly for its detection or how well is it in prevention against unknown stuff cause sooner or later the antivirus will detect the malware when it has signatures for it or due to heuristics but what about the time when it does not have a signature for the malware how does it protect the user then
I am not saying that Bitdefender is worst than Comodo but at default settings and with autopilot it is not the best at protection rather than detection
EDIT
I just Noticed that the person who started this thread is an advanced user http://malwaretips.com/Thread-NZS92-config
so i suppose he is more than capable of configuring both bitdefender and comodo at its best , It would be better if the person tested both the suites and draw to the conclusion according to his needs since comparing both the products is a never ending discussion
Thanks
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
Just a though BD has more ways to prevent malware reaching your PC, ie. Web guard (TrafficLight). It also has a Sandbox (or was that removed?) and SafePay for Online Banking. Not to mention Twitter and Facebook protection.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
I voted BitDefender 2013. Last one I used was when it had the red and white interface.
I use BD AV Plus 2013 and I observed it has:
- Clean UI (no Ads or Social crap)
- Auto-Pilot (non-intrusive mode)
- AV, Web, Privacy, Chat Encryption
- File Shredder
- Twitter & Facebook Protection
- Events (notification center) + desktop widget
- Only 3 processes idle, less than 25MB usage.
I use BD AV Plus 2013 and I observed it has:
- Clean UI (no Ads or Social crap)
- Auto-Pilot (non-intrusive mode)
- AV, Web, Privacy, Chat Encryption
- File Shredder
- Twitter & Facebook Protection
- Events (notification center) + desktop widget
- Only 3 processes idle, less than 25MB usage.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
I only voted for BitDefender because it has better protection for novice users and is more user friendly. BitDefender engine has excellent protection without having to add HIPS something most users don't understand or know how to use correctly.
I wouldn't use either for myself, I don't like security suites, I like to add my own combo. Free AV, WinPartrol and light firewall without HIPS.
Thanks.
I wouldn't use either for myself, I don't like security suites, I like to add my own combo. Free AV, WinPartrol and light firewall without HIPS.
Thanks.
To be honest, I should really retest BD 2013. My first test and review was when it was first out and since then a lot of improvements were made according to the change logs.
Comodo can be a good solution even on stock settings. Their detection rate has improved as well.
BitDefender on the other way went from resource hog to acceptable solution. Their signatures are being used across a lot of vendors if memory serves me right.
I would however go for their AV solution only.
When I tested the IS version of BD 2013, in auto pilot mode it allowed the firewall to allow some infections connect etc. Needless to say the review in question is no longer completely accurate so I have not voted for either one at this stage due to the need to retest BitDefender.
Comodo can be a good solution even on stock settings. Their detection rate has improved as well.
BitDefender on the other way went from resource hog to acceptable solution. Their signatures are being used across a lot of vendors if memory serves me right.
I would however go for their AV solution only.
When I tested the IS version of BD 2013, in auto pilot mode it allowed the firewall to allow some infections connect etc. Needless to say the review in question is no longer completely accurate so I have not voted for either one at this stage due to the need to retest BitDefender.
- Status
Similar threads
