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.

SeriousHoax

Level 32
Verified
AVG/Avast in Idle

View attachment 249134

AVG/Avast whilst running Octane browser performance test in the background:
View attachment 249136
Does it have HTTPS scanning? They used to have I know but later disabled due to a security issue. Don't know if they have enabled it again or not.
Try checking CPU and disk usage while you browse the internet casually. Load different webpages one after another to get an idea about the average usage.
 

McMcbrad

Level 10
Does it have HTTPS scanning? They used to have I know but later disabled due to a security issue. Don't know if they have enabled it again or not.
Try checking CPU and disk usage while you browse the internet casually. Load different webpages one after another to get an idea about the average usage.
I've built a script that automates the page opening/browsing for me. HTTPS Scanning is enabled and CPU usage rarely exceeds 3-4% which is totally acceptable.
 

SeriousHoax

Level 32
Verified
I've built a script that automates the page opening/browsing for me. HTTPS Scanning is enabled and CPU usage rarely exceeds 3-4% which is totally acceptable.
Yes that's common for AV with HTTPS scanning. I had seen more or less similar usage for Kaspersky, Bitdefender, ESET but Bitdefender use less on average as it doesn't do HTTPS scanning on most trusted pages you would visit regularly but one thing I have noticed that Bitdefender scans scripts really early. Even earlier than adblocker extension like uBlock Origin while Kaspersky don't/can't scan scripts that are blocked by uBO which is the expected result. I forgot how ESET does it.
Now comparing CPU usage while browsing with Windows Defender which doesn't do HTTPS scanning is much lower. With "Network Protection" enabled via ConfigureDefender, both "Antimalware Service" and "Network Realtime Inspection Service" use 0.5% CPU on average so 1% usage combined. This may result in longer battery life on laptops if the main thing the user do is browsing. This is my basic observation only so that's why I wish there were professional tests which showcase this impact.
 

McMcbrad

Level 10
Yes that's common for AV with HTTPS scanning. I had seen more or less similar usage for Kaspersky, Bitdefender, ESET but Bitdefender use less on average as it doesn't do HTTPS scanning on most trusted pages you would visit regularly but one thing I have noticed that Bitdefender scans scripts really early. Even earlier than adblocker extension like uBlock Origin while Kaspersky don't/can't scan scripts that are blocked by uBO which is the expected result. I forgot how ESET does it.
Now comparing CPU usage while browsing with Windows Defender which doesn't do HTTPS scanning is much lower. With "Network Protection" enabled via ConfigureDefender, both "Antimalware Service" and "Network Realtime Inspection Service" use 0.5% CPU on average so 1% usage combined. This may result in longer battery life on laptops if the main thing the user do is browsing. This is my basic observation only so that's why I wish there were professional test which showcase this impact.
Windows Defender has constant fluctuation in RAM used and upon launching an application has high CPU spikes, the highest I've observed personally >40%. So the battery that it will save during script scanning will then be drained when you use apps. AVG/Avast also scan scripts early, but they have a limit in size what they can scan. This is being carried over from AVG LinkScanner (developed by Exploit Prevention Labs). They've now removed the settings. The default was 500 kb if I am not mistaken.
 

SeriousHoax

Level 32
Verified
Windows Defender has constant fluctuation in RAM used and upon launching an application has high CPU spikes, the highest I've observed personally >40%. So the battery that it will save during script scanning will then be drained when you use apps.
Which app did you test? That's not normal. For installer maybe but for apps but I don't see this. I tested regular apps like Firefox, Edge, VLC, Media Player Classic, PatchMy PC, Process Explorer, Steam etc. and it doesn't use much. Less than 4% while launching Edge and Steam.
 

McMcbrad

Level 10
Which app did you test? That's not normal. For installer maybe but for apps but I don't see this. I tested regular apps like Firefox, Edge, VLC, Media Player Classic, PatchMy PC, Process Explorer etc. and it doesn't use much. Less than 4% while launching Edge.
Every time I uninstall a third party AV, anti-malware service executable starts running and I start hating my PC. ESET has a bug where sometimes Defender just randomly gets enabled (I saw it on 2 systems) and as soon as it starts running, on a slower one it's just a nightmare to work. If you try to install something (Windows Defender being the only AV), don't remember what It's been, there is a constant variation of 20-40% CPU usage. If you try launching Photoshop for example, you can feel the performance decrease and again, it uses about 40% on average. I've observed it many times on many systems, so there is no way this is not a common behaviour. This test also puts it on the last place.
Other 2 apps from the Windows Defender group are Trend Micro (absolute no for me) and Malwarebytes (both ineffective and heavy)
 
Last edited:

SeriousHoax

Level 32
Verified
Every time I uninstall a third party AV, anti-malware service executable starts running and I start hating my PC. ESET has a bug where sometimes Defender just randomly gets enabled (I saw it on 2 systems) and as soon as it starts running, on a slower one it's just a nightmare to work. If you try to install something (Windows Defender being the only AV), don't remember what It's been, there is a constant variation of 20-40% CPU usage. If you try launching Photoshop for example, you can feel the performance decrease and again, it uses about 40% on average. I've observed it many times on many systems, so there is no way this is not a common behaviour. This test also puts it on the last place.
Other 2 apps from the Windows Defender group are Trend Micro (absolute no for me) and Malwarebytes (both ineffective and heavy)
I don't have Photoshop so can't tell. It depends on the app someone use. For common apps it's very fast like I said above but not the same for resource heavy apps like Photoshop I guess. I used Sony Vegas Pro before with Windows Defender and WD did use a lot of CPU the very first time I ran after installation but everything was fine after that with very low CPU usage while launching. I didn't check CPU usage while rendering though.
WD came last because of file copying, apps installation and archiving, not for launching application. They used common apps I think that's why it did well which matches my experience. For most app launching it's the fastest on my system with very low CPU usage and it was true even with my previous 5400 rpm hdd laptop. Anyone who use Photoshop, Adobe Premier, After Effects, etc WD is not the best choice probably. ESET, Kaspersky, K7 (the fastest full suite AV I ever installed), F-Secure, etc.
Another thing, by the looks of it WD delete all sort of caches if you restart the PC so in that case the high CPU usage while launching apps like Photoshop may happen again. But with fast startup enabled it doesn't do that. This explains why I had very high CPU & disk usage when I ran Vegas Pro for the very first but never again later.
If I talk about myself, the things that I do mostly on my PC is, browsing the internet, playing games, watch movies/tv shows and do some work related to word document and pdf and Windows Defender is faster than most if not all on my system. Performance varies from system to system.
 

McMcbrad

Level 10
@McMcbrad Have you ever measured the impact of antiviruses on HDD maybe?
I have but I just can't remember all the values. In the case of web browsing it's almost irrelevant as very little information is stored on the disk and very little is scanned from there. It's mostly in RAM. In the case of software launch and installation it might not make a difference, as usually most people sit and stare at the installer :D
They don't really multitask.
 

EndangeredPootis

Level 8
Verified
F-Secure is now lightest. I am not sure what changes they have made. We can also see TotalAV getting lighter - they now offer Identity Protection from Experian as well and have boosted malware detection. Together with the improved performance and if they ditch their marketing nuisance, they might enter the field of Not-fake AVs soon. Avast and AVG have become a lot lighter and Avira has made a huge performance improvement as well. Trend Micro has become lighter than Norton.

All this is just a comparison of last 2 tests with this one. I am currently testing AVG and can't speak about any other product.
All they are using is the avira engine, nothing else, combined with their misleading advertising tactics in the form of fake review sites and scaretactics similar to Avast, and claiming to be the best, aswell as charging customers full price even after they have cancelled their subscription, id never call it to being close to being legit, especially with the fact their tests have been so inconsistent and so AV comparatives and AV test saying they have an 100% detection ratio of malware, aswell as 100% detection ratio of zero day malware yet in my test it caught one out of 7 zero day malware, and it was an avira detection, while they have access to thousands of them.

Just another reason to never trust AV test sites.
 
Last edited:

SeriousHoax

Level 32
Verified
All they are using is the avira engine, nothing else, combined with their misleading advertising tactics in the form of fake review sites and scaretactics similar to Avast, and claiming to be the best, aswell as charging customers full price even after they have cancelled their subscription, id never call it to being close to being legit, especially with the fact their tests have been so inconsistent and so AV comparatives and AV test saying they have an 100% detection ratio of malware, aswell as 100% detection ratio of zero day malware yet in my test it caught one out of 7 zero day malware, and it was an avira detection, while they have access to thousands of them.

Just another reason to never trust AV test sites.
Well, I'm not gonna comment on your rant 👀 but your comment is more suitable for this thread:
 

Andy Ful

Level 65
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
The performance of WD does not change for a long time and it is well understood for a long time too. I remember several threads about it. All operations related to tasks with many executables (copying, moving, archiving, backups, opening big folders first time after reboot) have poor performance because the files are re-checked by WD. There are also known methods to improve the performance by using Windows Policies or excluding folders. These performance issues are reflected in the left part of the performance table included in the report:

1605561313763.png

The right part of the performance table includes the tasks that consume 99% of average users' activities. In these tasks, Microsoft is as fast as the "lightest" Avs. If the user is focused on the tasks from the left part of the performance table, then he/she feels WD as slow - otherwise, the performance is usually great.
On some computers WD is slow without a visible reason. This is not necessarily related to poor resources.

Shortly, for most users WD has poor performance in %1 and great performance in 99%. Still, its performance is below average, because most AVs has even better performance during 1% of time. :) (y)
 

McMcbrad

Level 10
The performance of WD does not change for a long time and it is well understood for a long time too. I remember several threads about it. All operations related to tasks with many executables (copying, moving, archiving, backups, opening big folders first time after reboot) have poor performance because the files are re-checked by WD. There are also known methods to improve the performance by using Windows Policies or excluding folders. These performance issues are reflected in the left part of the performance table included in the report:

View attachment 249151

The right part of the performance table includes the tasks that consume 99% of average users' activities. In these tasks, Microsoft is as fast as the "lightest" Avs. If the user is focused on the tasks from the left part of the performance table, then he/she feels WD as slow - otherwise, the performance is usually great.
On some computers WD is slow without a visible reason. This is not necessarily related to poor resources.

Shortly, for most users WD has poor performance in %1 and great performance in 99%. Still, its performance is below average, because most AVs has even better performance during 1% of time. :) (y)
I can't comment on the performance of a product I haven't used for 30 days or more, but I am just sharing my short observations. They do not necessarily reflect how the product behaves on many machines. My reviews are usually impartial and based on long-term usage, monitoring and research of the the underlying technology. Here, I do not have the necessary knowledge, but my short experience with the product hasn't been great. :)
 
The performance of WD does not change for a long time and it is well understood for a long time too. I remember several threads about it. All operations related to tasks with many executables (copying, moving, archiving, backups, opening big folders first time after reboot) have poor performance because the files are re-checked by WD. There are also known methods to improve the performance by using Windows Policies or excluding folders. These performance issues are reflected in the left part of the performance table included in the report:

View attachment 249151

The right part of the performance table includes the tasks that consume 99% of average users' activities. In these tasks, Microsoft is as fast as the "lightest" Avs. If the user is focused on the tasks from the left part of the performance table, then he/she feels WD as slow - otherwise, the performance is usually great.
On some computers WD is slow without a visible reason. This is not necessarily related to poor resources.

Shortly, for most users WD has poor performance in %1 and great performance in 99%. Still, its performance is below average, because most AVs has even better performance during 1% of time. :) (y)
I never have any problems with WD. Occasionally some applications will launch slowly for a few days due to the Antimalware service scan, such as a newly released utility or IDE. But after a week or so, it generally goes away. If not, I create an folder exception and problem solved. A month later and I remove the exception and the processes have earned a sufficient reputation in WD to not be scanned every single launch. This is the only annoyance I have ever seen with WD.

I have 10+ GB folders and I just don't see the reported problems. I don't doubt the veracity of what people say about their experience with WD, but I just have never seen it. Many others have the same experiences.
 

McMcbrad

Level 10
F-Secure is really light....testing a trial version of their pure antivirus.
And i'm wondering about the amazing lightness....but how? Files checking only on execution like Mcafee oder whats the trick?
You can test that by downloading malware (even eicar will do). If it deletes it immediately, it scans on write as well. If it deletes it after you right-click the file, it scans on-access. If it deletes it after you open it, it’s only on-execution.
You might need to turn web-blocking off for this test.
 
Last edited: