Battle Bitdefender vs Kaspersky

[rohan]

Which is the best one?

 

[Paul.R]

Internet Security

 

[Šovelén]

which version of bitdefender did you use??

Firewall...yes, Comodo Firewall (free) is better, errors... I do not know, but I recognize that the CPU and HDD is right (BIS2014)

 

[alexp79]

hi
Bitdefender i always found it too buggy; kaspersky is good but heavy
i would go with something else^^

 

[Solarlynx]

I would choose Kaspersky. It has the best silent multilayered proactive protection + the best detection.

 

[jimipre]

I definitely prefer KASPERSKY. Which I'll explain further below. However I believe that if you are relying on only one Internet security product you are in big trouble. For web surfing, on questionable websites, you need more than a firewall and antivirus.

First, You must learn how to virtualize, there are a few good free virtualization products out there. I prefer free Sandboxie, but there are other good ones out there. Others include Timefreeze, Cameyo, VM-Ware. The best way to deal with computer viruses is to not get them and these virtualization products allow you to either empty the sandbox, or keep the program or programs that you downloaded. Twice I got hit with FBI ransomeware while my browser was sandboxed. all I had to do was close the browser, and empty the contents of sandbox. The whole process took about 10 seconds. For about a the last year, I got tired of paying for security products, like bitdefender, that just did not work . So I ran free avast with free zone alarm firewall, and I used some type of free sandboxing or virtualization. I have since added Acronis 2014 which has a sandbox component, as well as allowing for frequent hard drive image backups.

With all of these long term giveaways going on, A couple of weeks ago, I had a opportunity to try Bitdefender Internet security, Kaspersky Internet security, and AVG security side-by-side on 3 comparable computers. The only real difference between the computers was that one had a 2.5 GHz processor, and the other two had a 2.1 GHz processor. All had 4 GB of ddr – 3 RAM. Bitdefender tremendously slow down the faster of the two computers. Also, it kept alerting me to trivial things all the time. Like do I really need to know that the update was successfully completed 15 times a day. All I really need to know is, if an update was NOT successful. KasPersky, on the other hand, just stayed quietly in the background without an excessive number of alerts. Given that these two programs are consistently rated in the top three, I would certainly buy KasPersky before Bitdefender. I am from the USA, but I have to give it to the Russians on this one, in the Internet security arena they kick the crap out of the Romanians. AVG seem to have the least impact on computer performance, but I am concerned that the recent tests show that AVG's detection rates have slipped. Still, if I sandbox AVG, I feel quite certain that my computer will be malware free.

I found Bitdefender's "safe pay" browser-tunnel to be excruciatingly slow. It was so bad that I felt, I could have driven to the bank and back, by the time I got my banking done using Bitdefender's safe pay.

So, after the 91 days of KasPersky is up, I will likely buy KasPersky or install a year-long AVG as my antivirus and firewall combination. If F-secure or Eset has long-term free trial is available, I might try one of those.

When going to questionable websites or downloading questionable software I will sandbox or virtualize the browser.

Prior to downloading anything I use virustotal uploader, which loads links or programs to a website which scans them with 52 online scanners.

I use hitmanPro and Malwarebytes premium as second opinion scanners prior to installing any downloaded software. I also use free ADware as a second opinion scanner for potentially unwanted programs (pups)..

For chrome and Firefox browsers, I have installed HTTP switchboard browser extensions, which blocks cookies, scripts, plug-ins, ads, XHRS, and just about anything else. You get to decide what it allows to get through

 

[Dubseven]

The firewall of BitDefender (with much FPs but whitelist exist) is most powerfull.
Block much of malware's connections

 

[jimipre]

The firewall of BitDefender (with much FPs but whitelist exist) is most powerfull.
Block much of malware's connections

Last summer, was the first time I did a side-by-side comparison of bit defender and KasPersky. While, Downloading Windows 7 service pack one, bitdefender continually got knocked off-line. So I question, the veracity of bitDefender's firewall.

 

[rupeshkj]

Bitdefender is buggy where Kaspersky is not and the protection level is kind of similar so kaspersky for me

 

[wajiman]

the latest bitdefender is very good, although it has some bugs as its in Beta stage, the performance is great

 

[jimipre]

I definitely prefer KASPERSKY. Which I'll explain further below. However I believe that if you are relying on only one Internet security product you are in big trouble. For web surfing, on questionable websites, you need more than a firewall and antivirus.

First, You must learn how to virtualize, there are a few good free virtualization products out there. I prefer free Sandboxie, but there are other good ones out there. Others include Timefreeze, Cameyo, VM-Ware. The best way to deal with computer viruses is to not get them and these virtualization products allow you to either empty the sandbox, or keep the program or programs that you downloaded. Twice I got hit with FBI ransomeware while my browser was sandboxed. all I had to do was close the browser, and empty the contents of sandbox. The whole process took about 10 seconds. For about a the last year, I got tired of paying for security products, like bitdefender, that just did not work . So I ran free avast with free zone alarm firewall, and I used some type of free sandboxing or virtualization. I have since added Acronis 2014 which has a sandbox component, as well as allowing for frequent hard drive image backups.

With all of these long term giveaways going on, A couple of weeks ago, I had a opportunity to try Bitdefender Internet security, Kaspersky Internet security, and AVG security side-by-side on 3 comparable computers. The only real difference between the computers was that one had a 2.5 GHz processor, and the other two had a 2.1 GHz processor. All had 4 GB of ddr – 3 RAM. Bitdefender tremendously slow down the faster of the two computers. Also, it kept alerting me to trivial things all the time. Like do I really need to know that the update was successfully completed 15 times a day. All I really need to know is, if an update was NOT successful. KasPersky, on the other hand, just stayed quietly in the background without an excessive number of alerts. Given that these two programs are consistently rated in the top three, I would certainly buy KasPersky before Bitdefender. I am from the USA, but I have to give it to the Russians on this one, in the Internet security arena they kick the crap out of the Romanians. AVG seem to have the least impact on computer performance, but I am concerned that the recent tests show that AVG's detection rates have slipped. Still, if I sandbox AVG, I feel quite certain that my computer will be malware free.

I found Bitdefender's "safe pay" browser-tunnel to be excruciatingly slow. It was so bad that I felt, I could have driven to the bank and back, by the time I got my banking done using Bitdefender's safe pay.

So, after the 91 days of KasPersky is up, I will likely buy KasPersky or install a year-long AVG as my antivirus and firewall combination. If F-secure or Eset has long-term free trial is available, I might try one of those.

When going to questionable websites or downloading questionable software I will sandbox or virtualize the browser.

Prior to downloading anything I use virustotal uploader, which loads links or programs to a website which scans them with 52 online scanners.

I use hitmanPro and Malwarebytes premium as second opinion scanners prior to installing any downloaded software. I also use free ADware as a second opinion scanner for potentially unwanted programs (pups)..

For chrome and Firefox browsers, I have installed HTTP switchboard browser extensions, which blocks cookies, scripts, plug-ins, ads, XHRS, and just about anything else. You get to decide what it allows to get through

! correction I use ADWcleaner as a second opinion scanner for potentially unwanted programs (pups)..

 

[Edward ST]

Kaspersky definitely. Bugdefender is weak and big. KIS 2013's install is ~150 MB, and BIS 2013 ~390 MB. Even if Kaspersky slows a little bit PC, it's still a powerful security suite.

 

[omidomi]

bitdefender

 

[conceptualclarity]

They are very close. Going by the various outfits' tests, in 2013 Bitdefender was a little bit ahead. But in 2014 it looks to me like it's Kaspersky that's getting the slight edge.

 

[Littlebits]

The first things that come to my mind when I heard the word "BitDefender".
1. False positive king
2. Bugs, bugs and more bugs.
3. No customer support
4. Highly over-rated by AV tests.
5. Drains system response time with using high RAM or CPU.

Kaspersky is a much better product.

Enjoy!!

 

[Cowpipe]

I've never liked bitdefender, has always run slow for me and I've tried several different releases over the years. Also, far too many notifications, the filter system they've got in place for weeding out false positive alerts probably didn't make it into the compile. Kaspersky I used to have problems with on one of my resource strangled machines, particularly slow boot and start up times, even the occasional blue screen error (kaspersky driver crashing on a stable release) :O Testing the latest releases however, I much prefer Kaspersky, for it's better web security and being lighter on the system. Not had any bugs with it yet. The updates were slow for me but aside from that it did pretty good. Not my favourite AV but I'd sooner install it than Bitdefender.

 

[Tony Cole]

Kaspersky! I've used Kaspersky for 5-6yrs and never had a single infection. Yes it does slow the PC, so it depends on your system specs e.g., I have 32GB. Kaspersky requires at least 2GB.

 

[Tony Cole]

Saying that, Kaspersky's URL filter and anti-banner no longer works on Google Chrome

 

[ForgottenSeer 19494]

Bitdefender's Active Virus Control and B-Have technologies are better than Kaspersky's System Watcher. Strange to me but Kaspersky has fewer users than Bitdefender and it is still more trusted than BD. For me it's Bitdefender. Kaspersky though has ZetaShield and a Security network. And every single AV is more heavy or lighter than the other on different machines. Kaspersky is really more active developed and BD is more buggy.

EDIT: Forgot to tell you that BD is much cheaper when you find a good site to buy from.
http://www.anti-virus4u.com/The-New-Bitdefender-s/2.htm
This is a site from where you can buy really cheap AV. Don't know, it seems to be some kind of suspicious low prices but it has a good reputation and coments on WOT:
"This site is indeed a legit place to find great deals on a wide verity of popular Anti-Virus software suites.

Through out my investigation of this site I've found that it's claim's are indeed true, the vendor has been verified, the certificate has been issued by GeoTrust DV SSL CA. and the page for purchasing your product is encrypted with 128-bit encryption.

I personally feel 100% safe with making purchases on this site and highly recommend it to others.

Other findings-

VirusTotal Detection ratio: 0 / 53
https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/8d961a6e640c06324b839d204644d4fdb3b669...

URL Void: 0 / 28
http://www.urlvoid.com/scan/anti-virus4u.com/

Web Inspector: No malicious activity or malware detected, safe site. http://app.webinspector.com/public/reports/20202006

urlquery.net: No alerts detected
http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=9538546 "

 

[MrExplorer]

Kaspersky is far better than Bitdefender.

 

[Bergo]

Bitdefender!