To compare BitDefender and ESET. I understand that this thread is for people who want to understand things and set up AV to suit themselves. I see it as questionable whether ESET also takes it that way. Looking at ESET's corporate communications, I see the message everywhere: The important thing is the perfect balance.
Security solutions that install in minutes. You simply set them up and then you can leave them to work independently and seamlessly in the background. So install and worry no more. The concept of Balance also implies, in my opinion, a certain caution in the "aggressiveness" of the various default settings, as ESET sees it as better to miss something occasionally than to deal with FP more often. This can be seen in the Default settings of the firewall (everything "out" open), HIPS (almost no blocking) and even the AV engine itself (PUA disabled). ˇProtection effectiveness in various tests should be (and is mostly measured) just in the most user-friendly Default settings.
I also think that AV should work "autonomously" without user interaction. He is working on the PC, not "fighting" with malware.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
