Nice test
@Shadowra. Good to see Endpoint products being tested. But I didn't see HyperDetect in your Bitdefender console. Did this version not have it? I also didn't see the Sandbox feature. Looks like the version you tested didn't have these features. When I tried it in the past, due to HyperDetect and Sandbox BD Enterprise could detect more threats than the home versions. Their EDR edition detects even more.
After this test, what are my impressions? Bitdefender scans slower with the network scanner and because of that there is a visible slowdown in the operation of opening "links".
It's not too slow at opening links on a real machine because most sites you would visit regularly are already on their whitelist. But there was definitely some delay in the test. Here the extra delay could be down to VPN or VM, but ESET is faster in general for sure. BD's TrafficLight extension blocks links super-fast so not sure why BD can't do that for blacklisted links in their AV product. Also in ESET's case, most if not all of the malicious hosts were already blacklisted in ESET's database so that made things quicker. In general Bitdefender usually blacklist malicious hosts quicker than many products. Their showing here almost feels like an anomaly.
It's not about looking at the scan. Some fragment only to see the use of computer resources. And the time is always given after scanning in the summary on each AV, so it is enough to just show this parameter
Scan not the entire system, but a folder with test samples, where the on-demand scan is performed first during the test and then what is left - running
Bitdefender have had multi-threaded scanning for years while ESET only added it last year. So, Bitdefender always used more CPUs but recently when I tried ESET again it was also using high CPUs. More than 80% when it was scanning my SSD, but it came down when it started scanning the HDD. Bitdefender's philosophy seems to be getting things done as quickly as they can by using all the available cores and threads as their product is not the fastest at many things (Somewhat similar for Microsoft Defender which also have had multi-threaded scanning for many years). Kaspersky usually don't use over 40% CPU while scanning. Their philosophy is probably like, we are pretty fast, and we don't need to be the fastest.
Personally, I don't care about it at all since I almost never scan my PC, it's not necessary. A monthly scan by Norton Power Eraser is more sensible. But both Bitdefender and ESET scans are fast enough for me.
1. What does its cloud do? Does BD ask for signatures through the cloud?
Looks at the detection names in the video. There are multiple Gen.Suspicious.Cloud, Suspicious Cloud detections. So, they do have cloud signatures but relies less on it.
2. Does BD also have a huge number of signatures like Eset, or is the Eset database larger?
If we talk about local offline signatures, then Bitdefender has the largest database in the Antivirus industry. ESET's database is also big but their scanner is smarter and efficient. It can detect more with less. They don't have a typical behaviour blocker, but their Smart Signature/DNA detections is basically their behavior blocker. They are really good at what they call extracting genes from malicious code to detect similar malware. I have seen Bitdefender detecting malware from the Windows 98 era while signature for those samples has been deleted from the database of ESET, Avast, Kaspersky, Symantec, etc. So, BD probably don't cleanup their database as much.
3. And the last 3rd question. BD updates always weigh a lot and take a long time to complete? What takes BD so long to download? The signature database or some updates every time?
This has always been an issue of their product. They write from 400-800 MB on almost all signature updates. If you miss a few signature updates, then the writes go over 1 GB. You could say it's almost like a waste of SSDs wite cycles. But in the days of SSD, writing 1 GB or even more shouldn't take much time so their process of verifying downloaded signatures, keeping a backup of the old one, creating new database with the downloaded signatures, all of these takes time. Most other products do all these in seconds. I don't see how any of these would change unless they completely redesign their signature database which is easier said than done.
(hoping I don't have antivirus software that takes 2 hours to scan 
)
