App Review CheckPoint vs Eset Protect vs GravityZone

[IceMan7]

Thanks for the replies. I've been using Quad9 for years, even when it was part of Fsecure.
I often follow the Polish website www.avlab.pl

In this test, I see that ESET handled everything automatically. It usually asks for users' permissions for PUA detection. There are many legit tools that are can be considered to be a potentially unwanted app. Many of those are often used for malicious purposes. ESET ask for your permission to decide what to do with them.(.......)
BD's philosophy is 100% automatic protection. So, they don't detect legit apps like that. In the home version they only detect what they considered to be actual PUAs which sometimes may not match with other product's detection criteria. BD's PUA detection is not the best. In BD Enterprise edition many such tools are detected

I think we didn't quite understand each other.

Let's look at the test of this thread. In the video, time 9:16. @Shadowra unpacks the crack from a password-encrypted packed file. Eset responds with its "threat removed" pop-up and we see two more windows on the Windows screen. One looks like a command line and the other is a Windows "error" "Windows cannot find keygen...."

Next, we have Bitdefender and we see it differently. Time 15:06. Unpacking the crack and we only have a BD pop-up that notifies about the sample being blocked. Only the command line window flies by very quickly and the task is over. There is no Windows "error" with information in the pop-up.. What does it mean that it's the same sample but a different reaction? I'm trying to understand the detection mechanism.

However, now I also see a difference in web protection. I didn't notice it before. Not only is Eset faster in scanning, but in my opinion it does it better. Pages are blocked very quickly and we don't even have a pop-up Eset. BD downloads something and practically every page we have information in a pop-up that something has been blocked. In my opinion Eset does it much much better.

 

[kamiloxf]

Note that we are testing Enterprise products - These products can be much more precisely personalized what and possibly when the User should see on their computer. All 3 products can be configured even in such a way that the user will not be aware of the presence of the security solution

In the screenshots you can see fragments of management consoles where there are example configurations of interaction with the end user

 

[IceMan7]

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.

I have one more technical question. We know that BD almost lives in RAM but it loads the disk and processor less during operation. Eset saves RAM or loads the disk more. We also know that BD installed on HDD is not a good idea. What you wrote - BD's behavior regarding database updates, where it takes a huge amount of MB (because they weigh a lot) is some kind of burden or leads to negative effects on the SSD disk in the future? If so, is it better to keep BD on disk (high update weight) or is it better to work with Eset, where Eset loads the disk more than BD?

 

[SeriousHoax]

Eset responds with its "threat removed" pop-up and we see two more windows on the Windows screen. One looks like a command line and the other is a Windows "error" "Windows cannot find keygen...."

Next, we have Bitdefender and we see it differently. Time 15:06. Unpacking the crack and we only have a BD pop-up that notifies about the sample being blocked. Only the command line window flies by very quickly and the task is over. There is no Windows "error" with information in the pop-up.

Without checking the logs, I can't tell why there was the difference. BD's detection on that sample seemed to be from its behavior blocker. But both products blocked it successfully.

Eset saves RAM or loads the disk more.

I don't think ESET use the disk more than BD. Both products outside of the signature updating process, have low disk usage.

BD's behavior regarding database updates, where it takes a huge amount of MB (because they weigh a lot) is some kind of burden or leads to negative effects on the SSD disk in the future?

No direct negative effect but potentially reduces lifespan in the very long run. I'm a bit sensitive about it but from what I saw, most people don't care because nowadays SSDs have very high TBW values, so they last very long anyway. My not so expensive 1TB Nvme SSD's value is 200 TBW which is plenty. So, at the very least it can write 200 TB data. In 4.5 years, mine wrote 47 TB so far. So not even 1/4th of its limit.

 

[IceMan7]

Without checking the logs, I can't tell why there was the difference. BD's detection on that sample seemed to be from its behavior blocker. But both products blocked it successfully.

As for BD, I understand. And Eset? Didn't it use a behavior blocker to block the sample?
Such behavior of Eset with some pop-up windows is often seen in tests, for example on YT. BD does it more quietly, but it doesn't mean that such situations don't happen to it as well.

I don't think ESET use the disk more than BD. Both products outside of the signature updating process, have low disk usage.

In about 20 days I will install BD TS and see how it looks. I hope you are right.
Yesterday I did a system scan with Eset (the automatic one - I think it is intelligent from the machine) and looked at the Windows device manager (I will just remind you that I have WIN10). It showed 45-51% of the disk value and about 385Mb/s. (it was displayed in strong yellow/light orange)

No direct negative effect but potentially reduces lifespan in the very long run. I'm a bit sensitive about it but from what I saw, most people don't care because nowadays SSDs have very high TBW values, so they last very long anyway.

I checked CristalDiskInfo and it says 37TB. According to the manufacturer, my disk has a TBW of 641TB. But by the way - it shouldn't be like that. First, BD in the case of HDD tires the disk and second - in the case of SSD it overwrites so much data. I don't know how they can release such a poorly designed product to the market. Mega safe and effective but so half-baked.
And then you read in their marketing brochures that their employees teach at universities in Europe and are so great and yet they can't write AV programs....

 

[SeriousHoax]

It showed 45-51% of the disk value and about 385Mb/s. (it was displayed in strong yellow/light orange)

If you're scanning, then of course it's going to use disk. It needs to read, unpack and scan the data which is true for any product. As I said in a previous comment, you don't need to scan regularly. Run a Norton Power Eraser scan every week if you want and once a month you can scan the Users and ProgramData folder in C.

I don't know how they can release such a poorly designed product to the market. Mega safe and effective but so half-baked

I won't go as far to criticize them, tbh. They have millions of users you know, so they are getting the job done for most users including some users on this forum.

And then you read in their marketing brochures that their employees teach at universities in Europe and are so great and yet they can't write AV programs

Their university employees who are professors and lectures are some of the people who works on the research sides of things. They are not developers. They research on ML technologies, publish research papers, share more details to the Bitdefender lab and the devs try incorporating those into their product.

Anyway, here the Enterprise product was tested so not everything directly co-related to the home products. Let's wait till Shadowra performs the next test which he'll do very soon, and we'll discuss more things in that thread if necessary.

 

[Szellem]

If you're scanning, then of course it's going to use disk. It needs to read, unpack and scan the data which is true for any product. As I said in a previous comment, you don't need to scan regularly. Run a Norton Power Eraser scan every week if you want and once a month you can scan the Users and ProgramData folder in C.

I won't go as far to criticize them, tbh. They have millions of users you know, so they are getting the job done for most users including some users on this forum.

Their university employees who are professors and lectures are some of the people who works on the research sides of things. They are not developers. They research on ML technologies, publish research papers, share more details to the Bitdefender lab and the devs try incorporating those into their product.

Anyway, here the Enterprise product was tested so not everything directly co-related to the home products. Let's wait till Shadowra performs the next test which he'll do very soon, and we'll discuss more things in that thread if necessary.

May I ask what kind of protection you use and what are your preferences?

 

[Jonny Quest]

And then you read in their marketing brochures that their employees teach at universities in Europe and are so great and yet they can't write AV programs....

That edit, added comment, took my Like off your post. I've been using BD on and off since v10, and have been on and off the forum since 2007. The protection is one of the best, how things get written to the HD or SSD's, disk use etc. I'm not that knowledgeable about (I just provide general help). The greatest thing they struggle with (consumer side) is the app stability (for some). IMO, they are at their max as far as adding a requested feature without possibly "fixing one thing, and breaking another" without a bit of an app, coding etc. overhaul. But, that, stability has gotten a little better over the last ~6-8 months (fixes, driver updates etc.).

 

[IceMan7]

If you're scanning, then of course it's going to use disk. It needs to read, unpack and scan the data which is true for any product. As I said in a previous comment, you don't need to scan regularly. Run a Norton Power Eraser scan every week if you want and once a month you can scan the Users and ProgramData folder in C.

I only showed disk usage. Eset does this type of disk load. Yesterday I did an EEK scan and RAM was well over 1GB but the disk was only at max 19% and about 80-90Mb/s. So there is a difference.
It does not scan constantly. It scans once a quarter, with the AV I have installed and some second opinion - EEK, NPE and HitmanPro.

Their university employees who are professors and lectures are some of the people who works on the research sides of things. They are not developers. They research on ML technologies, publish research papers, share more details to the Bitdefender lab and the devs try incorporating those into their product.

I've already written a few times. Bitdefender is an AV that provides security and is currently at least one of the best. But I don't know and have never had such unfinished software. For years, something has been wrong there. There are always some fixes and updates. But still, others are constantly reported, because it can't work with some program or something blocks it. Or something doesn't work. I respect them for introducing some pioneering solutions (they are not the only ones who have researchers on ML or other solutions) and for their great effectiveness, but I won't praise them for the fact that they have had bug after bug for many, many years. It's like bragging that they have the fastest car but there are more in the service than I drive it. To finish - it's a shame that such a good security solution has never been refined for years. Apart from the fact that it is safe, wins numerous tests and has very good behavioral protection, it loses in other respects to almost every antivirus on the market. All the rest together doesn't have as many problems as Bitdefender itself.
And that's why it's still holding me back from returning to BD permanently.

All the rest catch up or are even better than BD. BD today really only has an advantage over most in behavioral protection.
The question is whether every user in the world clicks and runs anything they want these days. I don't think so. Users also don't run tests on their computers for a thousand or more samples.

Users today mainly need:
1. A good scanner that, after scanning the computer, ensures that nothing is in the system.
2. Good browser protection (because that's where we spend most of our time).
3. Protection against phishing, so that we don't download anything bad to our computer.
4. Banking protection.
5. Stable, lightweight AV that also doesn't make errors or interfere with using the computer.

Is BD the leader in these areas? I doubt it.

But, that, stability has gotten a little better over the last ~6-8 months (fixes, driver updates etc.).

BD has a lot of work on the forum. The prepared tutorials and instructions show that they know that their software is underdeveloped.
Relax. They will issue fixes, update current solutions and add something new and then go back to square one. It's been the same for years. They will fix one thing and break another.
I'll find out in about 20 days. I'll install BD for 30 days and I'll see how it works.

 

[Jonny Quest]

I only showed disk usage. Eset does this type of disk load. Yesterday I did an EEK scan and RAM was well over 1GB but the disk was only at max 19% and about 80-90Mb/s. So there is a difference.
It does not scan constantly. It scans once a quarter, with the AV I have installed and some second opinion - EEK, NPE and HitmanPro.

I've already written a few times. Bitdefender is an AV that provides security and is currently at least one of the best. But I don't know and have never had such unfinished software. For years, something has been wrong there. There are always some fixes and updates. But still, others are constantly reported, because it can't work with some program or something blocks it. Or something doesn't work. I respect them for introducing some pioneering solutions (they are not the only ones who have researchers on ML or other solutions) and for their great effectiveness, but I won't praise them for the fact that they have had bug after bug for many, many years. It's like bragging that they have the fastest car but there are more in the service than I drive it. To finish - it's a shame that such a good security solution has never been refined for years. Apart from the fact that it is safe, wins numerous tests and has very good behavioral protection, it loses in other respects to almost every antivirus on the market. All the rest together doesn't have as many problems as Bitdefender itself.
And that's why it's still holding me back from returning to BD permanently.

All the rest catch up or are even better than BD. BD today really only has an advantage over most in behavioral protection.
The question is whether every user in the world clicks and runs anything they want these days. I don't think so. Users also don't run tests on their computers for a thousand or more samples.

Users today mainly need:
1. A good scanner that, after scanning the computer, ensures that nothing is in the system.
2. Good browser protection (because that's where we spend most of our time).
3. Protection against phishing, so that we don't download anything bad to our computer.
4. Banking protection.
5. Stable, lightweight AV that also doesn't make errors or interfere with using the computer.

Is BD the leader in these areas? I doubt it.



BD has a lot of work on the forum. The prepared tutorials and instructions show that they know that their software is underdeveloped.
Relax. They will issue fixes, update current solutions and add something new and then go back to square one. It's been the same for years. They will fix one thing and break another.
I'll find out in about 20 days. I'll install BD for 30 days and I'll se

I take it we're talking about the consumer app, compared to the Enterprise editions this thread is about? If not, my reply may not be relevant.

I agree with your assessment regarding all the articles, which are helpful, but really don't address the issues within the app itself. If they were to do that, IMO, it would be as you said, fix one thing and break another...that others may not be having issues with. I believe that's why some of the feature requests are denied, as it could make the app more unstable, and I have voiced my opinion about that in some of those requests.

The most stable 3rd party Av's I've used personally, where I haven't needed an article to fix things was Kaspersky, was F-Secure pre v25.2, and so far Eset. I did have forum support questions, but don't remember posting about glitches, or the frequent number of glitches that are seen on the BD forum (I know, only those with issues post, compared to the vast percentage who don't need to).

Numbers 1-5 is a good list of what I would look for, too.

 

[IceMan7]

That's right. We're talking about consumer solutions. I haven't used any others, so I don't know.

I confirm. I had Fsecure for over 7 years. Now I'm leaving it because I don't want Avira. And I confirm, Eset is also mega stable.

Yes, people write when something doesn't work. But I also looked at the Eset or Fsecure forums. There weren't so many complaints there as about one BD.
Even if Fsecure broke something after an update, it reacted quickly. Another update and you forgot about the topic for a long time.

 

[TuxTalk]

BD is stable as hell here. ESET before not so much. Had a conversation on LinkedIn with the that time CBO of ESET about it.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ignaciosbampato/details/experience/

They offered me a license to test again and send logs. I did for a while but nothing improved, than he left ESET so i let it be.

here a part of the conversation we had on LinkedIN:

 

[IceMan7]

Where did I write that Eset is 100% problem-free? Same with Fsecure.
But these AVs don't have as many problems together as Bitdefender alone.
Bitdefender is still not stable. Just search the web. I also get enough of the comments of my friends who have BD and usually bought it because it was cheap.

There is no perfect software in terms of stability and lack of problems. It's just that some software has few of them, while others have more or have them all the time.

 

[TuxTalk]

Where did I write that Eset is 100% problem-free? Same with Fsecure.
But these AVs don't have as many problems together as Bitdefender alone.
Bitdefender is still not stable. Just search the web. I also get enough of the comments of my friends who have BD and usually bought it because it was cheap.

There is no perfect software in terms of stability and lack of problems. It's just that some software has few of them, while others have more or have them all the time.

Where did i write you said this ? Just wanna make clear, Eset is full of bugs too, Marcos from the Eset forum ( which is an awful dude btw ) will never admit, so i had to reach to some one higher in the company.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Where did I write that Eset is 100% problem-free? Same with Fsecure.
But these AVs don't have as many problems together as Bitdefender alone.
Bitdefender is still not stable. Just search the web. I also get enough of the comments of my friends who have BD and usually bought it because it was cheap.

There is no perfect software in terms of stability and lack of problems. It's just that some software has few of them, while others have more or have them all the time.

I don't think its fair to say Bitdefender is not stable, every AV will behave differently on various systems, I would have a hard time saying that BD is one of the worst in that regards. I used it briefly and had zero issues.

 

[TuxTalk]

I don't think its fair to say Bitdefender is not stable, every AV will behave differently on various systems, I would have a hard time saying that BD is one of the worst in that regards. I used it briefly and had zero issues.

Same here, Rock solid, on all systems and phones 0 issues.

 

[Jonny Quest]

I don't think its fair to say Bitdefender is not stable, every AV will behave differently on various systems, I would have a hard time saying that BD is one of the worst in that regards. I used it briefly and had zero issues.

So far on my Windows 11 24H2, no problems. But briefly is only a test drive, compared to a year or two on the road?

 

[oldschool]

briefly is only a test drive, compared to a year or two on the road?

So? Try it for a month and then use it long term and see for yourself. BD is one of the most trusted AVs you'll find, and I doubt you'll have any issues. And forget any of the BS about "lightness". Trust your actual experience vs. statistics, benchmarks, etc.. Word.

 

[Jonny Quest]

So? Try it for a month and then use it long term and see for yourself. BD is one of the most trusted AVs you'll find, and I doubt you'll have any issues. And forget any of the BS about "lightness". Trust your actual experience vs. statistics, benchmarks, etc.. Word.

But, didn't you know that "BaBa Bird is The Word," or, do I need to post that music video for you?

 

[IceMan7]

Just wanna make clear, Eset is full of bugs too, Marcos from the Eset forum

Is there any antivirus software that has zero bugs? Eset bugs compared to BD are a drop in the ocean. Eset usually does not conflict with other programs. Eset usually does not need to be reinstalled. Eset does not download gigabytes with each update. Eset is not noticeable at all that you have it on your computer. Generally, Eset with BD has no bugsat all or in comparison to BD there are very few of them.. And so you can write and write

I used it briefly and had zero issues.

Key words - you used it briefly. Use it for a year or more

BD is one of the most trusted AVs you'll find, and I doubt you'll have any issues.

It's been written here 100 times already. Bitdefender has been rocking the tests for years alongside Kaspersky. Mainly in behavioral protection. You feel safe in this respect when you have BD on your computer. But this is only its only main advantage today. In addition, it has much greater disadvantages compared to other AVs and is worse. Here in video tests (also on YT) it has been mentioned more than once that its detection efficiency has dropped when scanning 0-day samples. Its network (browser) protection is no longer as efficient as it used to be and is slower than many competitors. Banking protection is also average. Etc. I'm not mentioning the resources it takes up, it's heavy on the system (there are many lighter AVs), signatures are some kind of mistake, etc. Nobody criticizes BD in general for its protective capabilities but for the entire software, which is not as refined compared to the competition. If someone used Fsecure on their computer for years, the difference in stability is colossal. The same can be said about Eset or Kaspersky, for example. BD does not shine in this area and is an average, not to say weakling. Supposedly, BD is getting better in stability from year to year (fewer and fewer bugs), but the competition is not standing still. The competition also has its weaknesses, but not that much.
Sometimes I have the impression that some people feel good because BD wins tests, is the best in behavioral protection and nothing else matters. I had Fsecure for 7 years and I had fewer errors in 7 years than on BD for a year. I had a dozen or so AVs on my computer for over 20 years and only BD had to be reinstalled on two computers. Only in the case of BD did I have to look for solutions on the BD forum on average once a month. Now Fsecure has outed itself, so I will have to change it on my machine.
I have been testing Eset for 15 days and I have nothing to complain about. It is fast, lightweight, does not slow down anything, does not have a single error. It doesn't conflict with anything, it updates quickly. It does not slow down web browsing in Firefox. Firefox even works faster than on Fsecure. If I didn't have it in my head that I was testing it, I would have even forgotten that I had it. The only drawback I see today is that it is not cheap.

And I can bet that when BD updates the version again and adds or fixes something to its solutions, there will be a whole bunch of problems again. It's been like this for years.

Sometimes it's better to choose a solution that may not be #1 or #2 in tests, but one that gives you peace of mind for years.

That's all from me on this topic. Now we wait for Shadowra tests