Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
CheckPoint vs Eset Protect vs GravityZone
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IceMan7" data-source="post: 1121035" data-attributes="member: 121355"><p>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</p><p></p><p>Key words - you used it briefly. Use it for a year or more <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>That's all from me on this topic. Now we wait for Shadowra tests <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IceMan7, post: 1121035, member: 121355"] 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 Key words - you used it briefly. Use it for a year or more ;) 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 ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
