AV-Comparatives Consumer Performance Test April 2022

Disclaimer
  1. This test shows how an antivirus behaves with certain threats, in a specific environment and under certain conditions.
    We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use.
    Before buying an antivirus you should consider factors such as price, ease of use, compatibility, and support. Installing a free trial version allows an antivirus to be tested in everyday use before purchase.

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 61
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Apr 24, 2016
5,037
AV-Comparatives released their latest Performance Test Report for consumer security products under Microsoft Windows 10.

17 consumer products were tested regarding their impact on system performance. But keep in mind: Protection is more important than speed!

AV-Comparatives Releases Performance Test Report, Showing the Impact of Security Software on System Performance

AV-Comparatives, an independent test lab for antivirus software, has released its latest Performance Test report, highlighting the impact of consumer security software on system performance in low-end systems.

AV-Comparatives today announced the release of its latest Performance Test results, evaluating the impact of antivirus software on system performance. This independent testing lab is dedicated to informing users about protection against cybercrime, with its systematic testing of the market’s most popular security software solutions. The company creates a real-world test environment for accurate testing, which mimics the activities of typical users.

The products evaluated by AV-Comparatives in its Performance Test were Avast Free Antivirus, AVG Free Antivirus, Avira Prime, Bitdefender Internet Security, ESET Internet Security, G Data Total Security, K7 Total Security, Kaspersky Internet Security, Malwarebytes Premium, McAfee Total Protection, Microsoft Defender, NortonLifeLock Norton 360 Deluxe, Panda Free Antivirus, Total AV Antivirus Pro, Total Defense Essential Antivirus, Trend Micro Internet Security, and VIPRE Advanced Security.

The tests conducted by AV-Comparatives for each of the products include file copying, archiving & unarchiving, installing applications, launching applications, downloading files, browsing websites, and tests using the PC Mark 10 Professional Testing Suite.

AV-Comparatives carried out its performance test on a low-end machine with an Intel Core i3 CPU, 4GB of RAM, and a solid-state system drive (SSD), with Windows 10 21H2 64-Bit installed. The tests were conducted with an active Internet connection. Adequate measures were taken to minimize the factors capable of influencing the measurements and/or comparability of the systems.

According to AV-Comparatives, the reported data provides just an indication and may not be applicable in all circumstances because many factors can play an additional part. It also recommends that users should always put higher emphasis on protection rather than speed. All the tested products reached at least the “Standard” Award level.

In autumn AV-Comparatives will release its speed-impact test for high-end systems.
Blog post:
Results:
Schermafbeelding 2022-05-03 105935.jpg

PDF:
 

CyberDevil

Level 3
Well-known
Apr 4, 2021
142
In summary, for a gaming computer is still possible to recommend Eset, as the best option, or Norton, due to the game mode with performance optimization in its version for gamers.

The best option for protection without compromise in performance is G-Data, although this surprises me, when I tried this product it did not seem to me a lightweight, and using two engines in general can not be too light, it even has an option in the settings to disable one engine to improve performance, I hope that in the test did not use such lifehack. :)
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 61
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Apr 24, 2016
5,037
AV-Comparatives carried out its performance test on a low-end machine with an Intel Core i3 CPU, 4GB of RAM, and a solid-state system drive (SSD), with Windows 10 21H2 64-Bit installed.
In autumn AV-Comparatives will release its speed-impact test for high-end systems.
Will be interesting to see if the system configuration (hardware) makes a difference (y)
 

blackice

Level 36
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Apr 1, 2019
2,566
In summary, for a gaming computer is still possible to recommend Eset, as the best option, or Norton, due to the game mode with performance optimization in its version for gamers.

The best option for protection without compromise in performance is G-Data, although this surprises me, when I tried this product it did not seem to me a lightweight, and using two engines in general can not be too light, it even has an option in the settings to disable one engine to improve performance, I hope that in the test did not use such lifehack. :)
I would argue Microsoft Defender is just as good. Here's why, they only get knocked in AV-C's scores due to file transfers with a large amount of small files. Defender is very slow for this, but if this is outside of your use case then it is not a performance concern. My weekly backups still run at about 225 MB/s. Only when I move folders full of EXEs around do I see any slowdown.
Well. AV-C score is more important than PC Mark score; basically AV-C score determines the ranking, although I think the PC Mark score is closer to my experience.
100% concur. I have seen very little difference between Microsoft Defender and any 'light' solution I've tried. Though as noted above there are use cases where it matters. For the average gamer/surfer/streamer it's not usually an issue. It is a power user issue.
 

Nightwalker

Level 23
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 26, 2014
1,288
Ouch, Malwarebytes really needs to reduce its system impact, in my experience it is a lot better with version 4.5.x, but it certainly there is a lot of room to improve.
 
Last edited:

jackuars

Level 27
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Jul 2, 2014
1,641
Not sure how these scores translate to real world, but no matter which 'light' solution that I use, Defender is much lighter after using it for a week or two. I find myself going back to it every now and then and remove all antivirus product from my system. I was running F-secure but it continually slowed down my system.

But then hey Linux is much lighter and breezy to use so!
 

Tiamati

Level 11
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Nov 8, 2016
530
Blog post:
Results:
View attachment 266354

PDF:

I used to read a lot of those reviews before. But i'm getting skeptical with those results, specially after Microsoft improved so much their protection. Is it even possible that Microsoft would create an antivirus that is so much heavier than virtually all products in the market? We are saying that Microsoft doesn't know how to optimize its own antivirus on its own OS. It's hard to believe in that. It seems more as an attempt to justify the "need" to still use any other antivirus solution. And ask most users here, many of them will tell you that Windows is lighter with its own antivirus (maybe loosing for some well known light antivirus like Eset)
 

roger_m

Level 37
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Dec 4, 2014
2,603
Is it even possible that Microsoft would create an antivirus that is so much heavier than virtually all products in the market?
My experience with Microsoft Defender is that it is not particularly light and there are several third party antiviruses that are noticably lighter. Examples of such products are 360 Total Security, ESET, K7 and Panda, among others. On the other hand I have used antiviruses that are much heavier that Microsoft Defender.
 

Sorrento

Level 4
Dec 7, 2021
190
Can't see the point of paying out recently for expensive hardware then seeing a percentage of that drained away by an AV (unnecessarily) that has to run whenever the PC is on - Especially when there are products that do the job as well or better that run lightly on my system - If it means paying out a small amount that's OK, I understand that may not be an issue to some, but it is to me. :(:(
 

L0ckJaw

Level 19
Content Creator
Well-known
Feb 17, 2018
907
In summary, for a gaming computer is still possible to recommend Eset, as the best option, or Norton, due to the game mode with performance optimization in its version for gamers.

The best option for protection without compromise in performance is G-Data, although this surprises me, when I tried this product it did not seem to me a lightweight, and using two engines in general can not be too light, it even has an option in the settings to disable one engine to improve performance, I hope that in the test did not use such lifehack. :)
The current version of GData is very light. Can not compare to the older versions anymore.
 

flaubert1971

Level 1
Oct 14, 2019
38
On my high-end workstation g-data - latest version - loads slower than kaspersky and WD. This also happens in tests done on a virtual machine and with Windows 10 enterprise as operating system. F-Secure safe is the fastest I've tried.
WD has made a lot of progress but if set as recommended by DefenderUI then not at default, it runs the fans of my system liquid ccoling especially when downloading compressed files of certain sizes: so WD needs to improve in terms of the impact on the CPU.

I do not consider the published tests reliable.
 

L0ckJaw

Level 19
Content Creator
Well-known
Feb 17, 2018
907
On my high-end workstation g-data - latest version - loads slower than kaspersky and WD. This also happens in tests done on a virtual machine and with Windows 10 enterprise as operating system. F-Secure safe is the fastest I've tried.
WD has made a lot of progress but if set as recommended by DefenderUI then not at default, it runs the fans of my system liquid ccoling especially when downloading compressed files of certain sizes: so WD needs to improve in terms of the impact on the CPU.

I do not consider the published tests reliable.
Dont agree with you. On my 2 systems, GDATA loads faster than F-Secure/Norton , Kaspersky i dunno, i dont like it.
 

blackice

Level 36
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Apr 1, 2019
2,566
See my previous response to this. It is not 'heavy' for everyone. For most people it is a waste of money to chase a 'lighter' solution. For some it isn't. This test is not a universal truth and can be quite dependent on hardware as well.
I would argue Microsoft Defender is just as good. Here's why, they only get knocked in AV-C's scores due to file transfers with a large amount of small files. Defender is very slow for this, but if this is outside of your use case then it is not a performance concern. My weekly backups still run at about 225 MB/s. Only when I move folders full of EXEs around do I see any slowdown.

100% concur. I have seen very little difference between Microsoft Defender and any 'light' solution I've tried. Though as noted above there are use cases where it matters. For the average gamer/surfer/streamer it's not usually an issue. It is a power user issue.
 

Kiss

Level 2
Oct 6, 2021
85
See my previous response to this. It is not 'heavy' for everyone. For most people it is a waste of money to chase a 'lighter' solution. For some it isn't. This test is not a universal truth and can be quite dependent on hardware as well.
Microsoft is not 100% focused on security like antivirus companies, I will never trust Microsoft protection, they are still very weak against script, ransomware, 0 day malware and bank protection