Hello,
Who has the best solution in terms of performance and protection against phishing and malware?
Who has the best solution in terms of performance and protection against phishing and malware?
Emsisoft Anti - Malware / Eset Internet Security / F-- Secure Safe (second half of 2020)
- Thread starter Chausko
- Start date
That would be the day, Avira has potencial to be much better.
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,868
Looks like you have a bit of confusion how tests are done. Most of the real world AV labs tests that you see use a direct link of malware source to download malware on the browser. It seems Avira is better than ESET at blocking malicious links. But you can install their extension on any browser to achieve that level of protection. But in terms of system impact, resource usage that extension is pretty awful according to some tests.
Btw, I was very clear in my previous comment that Avira has very good signatures for exe malwares but awful against scripts.
The only test that I am aware of except our malware hub that does test only offline signatures of AV vendors is this one. Have a look at the offline detection rate to know what I am talking about.
Anyway, I am not saying that you shouldn't use Avira. It's a good AV and keep using it if you're happy with it.
Malware Protection Test March 2020
The Malware Protection Test March 2020 assesses program’s ability to protect a system against malicious files before, during or after execution.
www.av-comparatives.org
the offline detection rate is low, after all, the detection of avira is done almost completely in the cloud, 90% offline is not so bad. there are worse ones, the main tests of the comparative av are the "Real-World Protection" and as I said in another comment. an isolated test does not prove anything, what proves excellence is the long term progress of the antivirus, if you enter the part of the progress in the comparative av, its performance is much superior in the long run than ESET, Tests will always be one or the other that stands out but keeping up is very difficult. In my tests Avira has always detected malicious Scripts. I think this information is not real. If avira was not good at scripting, its reputation in av-test and comparatives would be terrible. but I respect your opinionLooks like you have a bit of confusion how tests are done. Most of the real world AV labs tests that you see use a direct link of malware source to download malware on the browser. It seems Avira is better than ESET at blocking malicious links. But you can install their extension on any browser to achieve that level of protection. But in terms of system impact, resource usage that extension is pretty awful according to some tests.
Btw, I was very clear in my previous comment that Avira has very good signatures for exe malwares but awful against scripts.
The only test that I am aware of except our malware hub that does test only offline signatures of AV vendors is this one. Have a look at the offline detection rate to know what I am talking about.
Anyway, I am not saying that you shouldn't use Avira. It's a good AV and keep using it if you're happy with it.
Malware Protection Test March 2020
The Malware Protection Test March 2020 assesses program’s ability to protect a system against malicious files before, during or after execution.
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,868
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
common consensus is that Avira is not light
The issue with lightness in general however, and this includes common reviews not being clear is how lightness is measured.
You cannot simply say a program is light whilst is on idle mode.
One needs to account with and without solution installed:
System startup and shutdown average in multiple instances
copying files
performing basic tasks
I/O disk monitoring whilst solution is under light and heavy duty (scan, light scan, disinfection etc).
and of course system impact as well overall
I can tell you by experience in multiple barebones machines (not vm), Avira shows its heaviness during scans and the removal of infections.
in comparison ESET has better system resources optimization
FWIW what we’ve seen in the malware hub is that ESET’s offline scans seem to result on an overall protection rate that pretty much is neck in neck with the best Antimalware tested, EXCEPT when you go and write something fake and malicious where ESET basically has zero detection but frequently behavior blockers from other AVs will detect it.
@harlan4096 tested F-Secure for a few months which has Avira and Avira Cloud. From his results, static scanning performance for F-Secure was consistently lower than ESET. However, F-Secure on execution would often trigger a combination of Avira Cloud, F-Secure Cloud, as well as DeepGuard (behavior blocker) protection, resulting in an overall protection rate that’s pretty darn good.
In terms of lightness, I do find in general Avira is fast and light, except when files seem to be likely infected, the Avira cloud can sometimes take 10 seconds to return a verdict. I assume it’s doing some sort of sand boxing evaluation or uploading the sample during that time.
@harlan4096 tested F-Secure for a few months which has Avira and Avira Cloud. From his results, static scanning performance for F-Secure was consistently lower than ESET. However, F-Secure on execution would often trigger a combination of Avira Cloud, F-Secure Cloud, as well as DeepGuard (behavior blocker) protection, resulting in an overall protection rate that’s pretty darn good.
In terms of lightness, I do find in general Avira is fast and light, except when files seem to be likely infected, the Avira cloud can sometimes take 10 seconds to return a verdict. I assume it’s doing some sort of sand boxing evaluation or uploading the sample during that time.
- Sep 10, 2015
- 901
Real world protection depends a lot of your geographical location, out of those only ESET has a malware lab in Latin America while the others don't (considering BD as Emsisoft and Avira as F-Secure). ESET it's very fast detecting phishing scams targeting banks of my country and they also have WeLiveSecurity on Spanish covering the most important malware campaigns targeting Latin American users, I see you're from Slovakia the home of ESET so I'd go for it also performance impact it's minimal.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 5,458
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
I think he means popularity
ESET is extremely popular in south america.
Same way in russia and south east asia, kaspersky, dr web, chinese solutions and south korean ones are more common.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 5,458
Maybe he did, but I'm still curious to know.
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
considering popularity its possibly the reason why more stuff gets detected geographically from such continent.Maybe he did, but I'm still curious to know.
One reason ESET was always so popular was because its trial reset was from SA, not to mention old version 2 fixes were initially originated from SA.
Panda at one stage was also very popular (specially because its Spanish).
take Dr Web for example, it has better results with localized detection over worldwide. Kaspersky on the other hand is considered a giant, so it needs to have a way broader database.
Note that we are strictly talking about signatures, not other defense/detection mechanism
- Sep 10, 2015
- 901
ESET has a malware lab and offices in Argentina, I'm not sure about Emsisoft and F-Secure because they don't even have authorized sellers in most LatAm countries (the only way to legally acquire their products it's from their international website).
ESET, Kaspersky and Panda lead the paid AV market in the region and you can easily buy physical licenses on major computer retailers.
I can't deny the fact that there's a whole community dedicated about pirated ESET and sharing license keys but I'm not going to enter into details.
Last edited:
Similar threads
