Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks (Edition 3)

OpenSecLabs said:
http://www.passmark.com/ftp/totalsecuritysuites-mar2015.pdf

it is a long pdf so it takes some time. I don't know how trusted this test it is :)
Click to expand...

I think those results are accurate for the specific tested systems - as well as widely reported general trends. For example, most of us here know that Bitdefender browsing is horrible due to their web-content filtering.

How each one will perform on each user's specific system is a different matter. Kaspersky is ranked rather highly in the tests, but on my specific system the interface takes forever to load.

So, the report is generally accurate - meaning the general trends for each AV are true.

In the end, AV-XYZ will not necessarily perform the same on my system as it does on your system... nor will it perform the same on two completely identical systems - for whatever reason(s).

I think it is reputable\trustworthy evaluation\assessment.
 
What kinda system do you have for the Kaspersky interface to load so slowly? Mine will actually open max. 20-30 seconds upon login, (and yes I've actually taken the sad time out of my little life to time it)

P.S. when I ran Bitdefender GravityZone browsing, page loading etc., was very fast, is this not the case?
 
Tony Cole said:
What kinda system do you have for the Kaspersky interface to load so slowly? Mine will actually open max. 20-30 seconds upon login, (and yes I've actually taken the sad time out of my little life to time it)

P.S. when I ran Bitdefender GravityZone browsing, page loading etc., was very fast, is this not the case?
Click to expand...

I have various AMD W8.1 systems. Slow loading AVs is not uncommon - a quirk specific to some AMD systems.

On Intel system Kaspersky loads 30 - 45 secs... I never timed it.

BitDefender browsing is terrible on all my systems... and all versions of BD malfunction on my AMD W8.1 systems. These are on-going issues with BD... but on some specific systems BD works great. I have had no luck with it.

I have low-end systems (e.g. not i7s; perhaps equivalent to i3's from two years ago).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rolo, OokamiCreed and frogboy
That is why Symantec Corporation is with other color
 
  • Like
Reactions: Venustus
Although Norton is highlighted in each test, the results do seem reliable as it doesn't look like the results of other vendors have been manipulated.
 
I've found Kaspersky to be very effective but never fast; I value performance greater than the extra ounce of security.

I have found Norton to be light over the past few years; I ran it when my former ISP gave it away and during beta tests.

This test is of little use to me since I never, ever have nor will spend money on a security product; it isn't necessary and there are much more fun or interesting things to do with my money (*ahem*Steamsales*cough*cough*).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Venustus
Interesting results, kaspersky always quite high up although through personal experience it's quite heavy on my system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Venustus
Passmark tests reflect my own experience with different security solutions, to me it is more accurate than AV-Test for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Venustus
I should agree where Norton performance benchmarks is good even from my experiences before however many AV's are profound to excel on some or more categories which makes sense of different leading results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Venustus
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...