Software to Compare
Emsisoft Browser Security: [URL="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/emsisoft-browser-security/"]Emsisoft Browser Security – Get this Extension for Firefox (en-US)[/URL]
Malwarebytes Browser Extension: [URL="https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/malwarebytes/"]Malwarebytes Browser Extension – Scarica l’estensione per Firefox (it)[/URL]

Moonhorse

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
Malwarebytes is better when it comes into protection, bit too agressive & has false positives. Open up task manager, take a look on cpu usage....malwarebytes is a cpu hog, but on decent pc you probably dont notice any slow downs anyways

Emsisoft is well balanced, and much lighter
 

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
Two months I try at the same time at Opera and Google chrome Emsisoft and Bitdefender trafic light. I saw many ups and downs in the detection of Emsisoft. He has days he finds everything and days he did not find anything. Bitdefender was stable for all my tests. Sure is weak against pup. Good against phishing sites not perfect. But i use it combo with netcraft for banking, or when I want to buy something from the internet. Is light and ......YES. Have very good support now from Bitdefender.
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Malwarebytes Browser Extension
  • Blocks malicious programs or code
  • Blocks online scams, including technical support scams, browser lockers, and phishing
  • Blocks the downloading of potentially unwanted programs, including toolbars and pop-ups
  • Blocks third-party ads and third-party ad trackers that monitor your online activity
  • Blocks content and websites that often displays behavior of questionable value --- controversial for some users
Emsisoft Browser Security Extension
  • Blocks dangerous websites that distribute malware and prevents phishing attacks
  • Privacy-focused = no data collection
Windows Defender Browser Protection Extension
  • Protects against phishing sites and socially engineered malware sites
  • Real-time indicator of harmful sites and website status

Malwarebytes is better when it comes into protection, bit too agressive & has false positives. Open up task manager, take a look on cpu usage....malwarebytes is a cpu hog, but on decent pc you probably dont notice any slow downs anyways

Emsisoft is well balanced, and much lighter
Malwarebytes does provide more "protection features" than Emsisoft and perhaps that contributes towards memory usage. However I didn't see much CPU activity via the browser's Task Manager.

214363

Image: Chrome v74 64-bit
 

camo7782

Level 4
Malwarebytes does provide more "protection features" than Emsisoft and perhaps that contributes towards memory usage. However I didn't see much CPU activity via the browser's Task Manager.
Ho do you check that in Firefox? How do you enable windows plug-in?

Also is it just a test or you run all three? the more the better ^____^
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Ho do you check that in Firefox? How do you enable windows plug-in?

Also is it just a test or you run all three? the more the better ^____^
Source: Task Manager - see what tabs or extensions are slowing down Firefox | Firefox Help

Windows Defender Browser Protection (extension, not a plug-in) is only available for Chrome users.
Chrome Web Store: Windows Defender Browser Protection

Screenshot was shared as an example in response to @Moonhorse's comment. I don't use any of the 3 extensions because I have no need for them. Less is more. Less is better.
 

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
Malwarebytes Browser Extension
  • Blocks malicious programs or code
  • Blocks online scams, including technical support scams, browser lockers, and phishing
  • Blocks the downloading of potentially unwanted programs, including toolbars and pop-ups
  • Blocks third-party ads and third-party ad trackers that monitor your online activity
  • Blocks content and websites that often displays behavior of questionable value --- controversial for some users
Emsisoft Browser Security Extension
  • Blocks dangerous websites that distribute malware and prevents phishing attacks
  • Privacy-focused = no data collection
Windows Defender Browser Protection Extension
  • Protects against phishing sites and socially engineered malware sites
  • Real-time indicator of harmful sites and website status


Malwarebytes does provide more "protection features" than Emsisoft and perhaps that contributes towards memory usage. However I didn't see much CPU activity via the browser's Task Manager.

View attachment 214363
Image: Chrome v74 64-bit
214375
 

Moonhorse

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
Malwarebytes does provide more "protection features" than Emsisoft and perhaps that contributes towards memory usage. However I didn't see much CPU activity via the browser's Task Manager.
Enable '' cpu timer'' from task manager & then browse some sites and look aftermath, how much of cpu time the extension has been used. I dont know is the name cpu timer, im running finnish chrome...sorry for that
 

RoboMan

Level 30
Verified
Content Creator
Malware Tester
I use Kaspersky Internet Security, which monitors the web and the downloads. No need for extra extensions. If I had to choose, it would be either Windows Defender Extension or MalwareBytes.
 

ebocious

Level 4
As far as I know, Emsisoft uses signatures, whereas MBBE uses behavior analysis. Assuming this is the case, while Emsisoft might have fewer false positives, MBBE is going to catch more zero-day or even zero-hour threats.

BDTL claims to use cloud engines for analysis, and may catch some additional 0-day threats.

Kaspersky seems to catch a bunch of stuff, but I don't want a plugin. That's just one more vector into the system that I don't need. And then you can always count on Symantec to buy a great product like K9 and kill it off.

I've got my eyes open for a signature-based extension with a good detection rate, in case of threats that aren't easily detected by behavior analysis. Emsisoft looks promising, and Avira seems to be improving. But I won't sacrifice MBBE, even if it does have some false positives. Most of my machines run Windows, and can be locked down nicely with AppGuard or Cruel Comodo, while still allowing the occasional software update with a simple flick of a switch. But there is no such protection for a Mac, which is my daily driver. Until I find a singular tool that can stand up to a non-commissioned test (Cylance failed CS' testing), I want as much 0-day coverage on the front line as possible. And MBBE is it.
 

Back3

Level 5
I tried Emsisoft, Malwarebytes and Windows Defender extensions. Windows Defender Browser Protection is still in my chrome browser. But, most of the time, when I go to shady sites, the first reaction comes from Adguard extension filters. I'd say nine out of ten. So with ComodoCruel, Chrome Safe Browsing and Adguard, I'm really wondering if I need any of those extensions!
 
Last edited:

blackice

Level 26
Verified
I use Kaspersky Internet Security, which monitors the web and the downloads. No need for extra extensions. If I had to choose, it would be either Windows Defender Extension or MalwareBytes.
You went back to KIS? No more WD?
 
Top