Awesome advice everyone, thanks so much for your input! Great information here. It actually sounds like they have some similarities, or attract a similar user. And I have the license from MT
Eset sounds great- this was one I had never heard of before reading forums etc.
Any difference in terms of stopping RATs, keyloggers...basically if you wanted to access a specific person's computer, which would be easier to find a way around? This might not be a different question than any other sort of protection, not sure.
I think its going on the gaming PC, unless he can't give up MSE
, then I will put it on my main PC. I think he is concerned any other AV will slow down the system too much. I don't know, looking at av-comparatives etc. on performance, it doesn't seem like MSE is as light as I assumed. His last non-MSE AV was McAfee or Norton years ago and I think it did not go well performance wise.
It must be noted that CIS versus ESET is a battle on its own, since both products are not in the same league.
Where CIS aims for network protection and the AV is just a bonus. Eset goes for total protection, where individual tools within the program might differ from quality yet as a whole it does a much better job then CIS. Generally can be said that eset's firewall is no good compared to CIS, yet the firewall as a module within their program has great backup and potentially way more stopping power then CIS this is not to the credit of the firewall but more to the credit of other features within the program.
So without doing CIS discredit they are being put on the side line by eset...
This is interesting, it sounds like there is more to firewalls than I assumed. I was thinking about this today, if there could/should/is some sort of real-time heuristic component for firewalls (this probably exists...and I had no idea
). Do they have definitions of any kind, like sites that data should not be sent out to or is this handled by AV component? Am I correct in thinking a firewall is just a set of rules? If you configure the rules in Eset to match Comodo's, wouldn't you get the same Firewall or Is it doing some sort of traffic analysis as well or is one more easily shutdown by malware?
So i am kinda baffled by your reaction as lots of AV programs use the same features but just call it a different name or make it partnered with a different tool.
I actually didn't realize this either- or suspected something like this went on, but couldn't figure it out
. I would think every AV would want to list every feature, separate the ones combined into one tool, to show how much it does. Maybe many people wouldn't read the whole list, but they would see a lot of items. I would love to be able to find a technical description that describes what the company specific terms mean or what they basically do on a technical level, but maybe this gives too much away to competitors. It would be really interesting to have some sort of chart showing whether the feature exists/what its name is, in each AV. Maybe there is a way to start that on here...
Both have an anti-bot exploit feature... not really a complete anti-exploit capability like MBAE or HMPA.
Ok, good to know, I saw anti-exploit and thought that meant application exploit. I thought I heard/read that Eset was not compatible with MBAE b/c of their own exploit? It will be interesting to see if it conflicts. I didn't realize bots were a problem on any computer with any AV...their actions sound like they would be easy to spot, but maybe I underestimated them. Although sometimes reading the features of AV, I am wondering if some feature is unique to that product or they just bothered to mention it...kind of related to what Nico@FMA mentioned...its hard to easily compare feature by feature