Battle Emsisoft, ESET & Kaspersky - My Rating Table

[hjlbx]

My system specs:

Windows 8.1 U1 x86-64 (OEM) Toshiba
AMD A8-6410 2GHz
6 GB RAM
750 GB RAM 5400 rpm HDD

Emsisoft Internet Security 9.0.0.4985
ESET Smart Security 8.0.304
Kaspersky Internet Security 15.0.2.361

I know this chart will be controversial. Despite that fact it documents my actual experience with Emsisoft, ESET and Kaspersky on my specific system.

It represents only my opinion - which is based on the best that I have been able to manage in terms of using objective criteria (e.g. detection rate, CPU % observations). It is not comprehensive and it's just plain "what I think." That's it.

Features: Either the product has it or it doesn't. Apologies if I miss the precise details.

In some categories I split hairs to determine the rank. In other categories one product decisively bested the other two.

Bottom line is this... there's a reason why Emsisoft, ESET and Kaspersky are consistently the most popular software security solutions here at malwaretips.com.

With any of these products I rest assured that my choice will serve me well... but I also had to put in the time to learn how to use each one, and then use it with consistency and discipline.

Let the Great Debate begin. It will be the wonderment of our age.

NOTE: If I made an error, please, someone point it out.

NOTE:

Novice, Intermediate and Advanced are my assessment of each product as I progressed with each product. So at an Intermediate level of understanding I did better with Kaspersky (see table).

NOTE: Unneeded Features = has the least number of needless add-ons. For example, registry cleaner, system cleaner, parental control. Or has option for custom install only what user wants/needs. Emsisoft sticks only to what is absolutely necessary, ESET has custom installer, and Kaspersky has it all except registry cleaner/optimizer...but what Kaspersky includes is needed for a family suite. All-in-all each one does very good in what is installed for intended user.

NOTE:

Kaspersky products are currently only available in 32-bit versions. Consequently, a 64-bit system is not fully protected by Kaspersky. For full details, see KIS 2015 User Manual pages 65-66.

 

[Piteko21]

could not agree more, but I think the Eset must hit kaspersky in the detection even for short, according to some tests I have seen, great work @hjlbx

 

[sid_16]

Emsisoft Internet Explorer 9.0.0.4985

Please correct 'Emsisoft Internet Security9.0.0.4985'

 

[ronaldh]

I second what Sid says. The Internet explorer thing threw me off.

Other than that, really interesting comparison table. I'd like to see this with other AVs though, like Webroot, AVG and Avast.

 

[hjlbx]

Please correct 'Emsisoft Internet Security9.0.0.4985'

Fixed.

 

[marzametal]

wow... this just reminded me that Emsisoft did intentionally "dumb down" v9... how could I forget about this!

1. Is there any real use installing a "free" version of Kaspersky or ESET?
2. Emsisoft featured 2nd in Detection, even with access to the BitDefender engine. What does Kaspersky pack under the hood to beat Emsisoft in that department (do they have access to other detection engines as well)?
3. AntiExploit - would activating this module in Kaspersky / ESET provide better protection in comparison to, lets say... MalwareBytes AntiExploit or HitmanPro Alert? (fair enough, one covers browser, one covers system, but still...)
4. HIPS - this is part of the reason why I didn't want to jump to EIS 9, stuck with EAM

For the most part, it's Kaspersky first, and a toss-of-a-coin for second... wow!

 

[December]

Wow, good work!

 

[hamo]

Great work ,

I am agree with all chart ,
I tested all 3 product several times during many years and I feel you talking about my experiences.

Thanks for your effort .

 

[hjlbx]

Sorry Marin, I missed your post.

1. Is there any real use installing a "free" version of Kaspersky or ESET?
2. Emsisoft featured 2nd in Detection, even with access to the BitDefender engine. What does Kaspersky pack under the hood to beat Emsisoft in that department (do they have access to other detection engines as well)?
3. AntiExploit - would activating this module in Kaspersky / ESET provide better protection in comparison to, lets say... MalwareBytes AntiExploit or HitmanPro Alert? (fair enough, one covers browser, one covers system, but still...)
4. HIPS - this is part of the reason why I didn't want to jump to EIS 9, stuck with EAM

For the most part, it's Kaspersky first, and a toss-of-a-coin for second... wow!

Yes. Emsi is trying to refine their product for typical user. They're intentionally moving away from us geeks... cause we're too smart to pay for the softs.

1.

No free versions of K or ESET.

2.

Kaspersky has Trusted Application Mode with full system scan (kinda like AppGuard, but scans system and white-lists all executables and scripts on your system). Creates absolute default-deny of any unknown apps and scripts; nothing can run. +100 for the smart Russians.

It has anti-screen-locker.

It has cryptor counter-measures (backs-up files before they can be encrypted). +100 for the smart Russians.

K offers more features than Emsi, but for typical user Emsi is more than sufficient.

Over time I would bet that K average detection rate = Emsi average detection rate (+/- 1 %)... so, really, we're splitting hairs here.

Kaspersky has Security Network... it's version of file-rating like Emsi and ESET. KSN is bigger, better and badder.

Emsi Anti-Malware Network is nipping at K's heels.

3.

Maybe ask Erik Lohman from SurfRight. Ask him straight-up. He will be quick to tell you if HMPA is better or needs more work.

Personally, I think HMPA RC 3 is much more advanced. Kaspersky\ESET Anti-Exploit is probably on par with EMET 5.4... or whatever the version currently is.

4.

EIS 9 does not have a HIPS module; it only has Surf Protection, File Guard, Scanner and Firewall. That's it...and with less features it will perform equal to, or a little bit less than, either K or BitDefender.

Emsi has much better firewall than both K and BitDefender.

 

[Alexstrasza]

Sorry Marin, I missed your post.
EIS 9 does not have a HIPS module; it only has Surf Protection, File Guard, Scanner and Firewall. That's it...and with less features it will perform equal to, or a little bit less than, either K or BitDefender.

Just my two cents: You are missing the Behavior Blocker - it's also the main reason why EIS does not have OA's HIPS feature.

 

[Tony Cole]

I cannot believe Kaspersky does not fully protect 64 bit operating systems

 

[Alexstrasza]

I cannot believe Kaspersky does not fully protect 64 bit operating systems

I had no idea about that - was a former Kaspersky user before my current Emsisoft days.

 

[hjlbx]

Just my two cents: You are missing the Behavior Blocker - it's also the main reason why EIS does not have OA's HIPS feature.

I failed to mention it.

I cannot believe Kaspersky does not fully protect 64 bit operating systems

K only 32-bit coded which means it will not generate HIPS alerts for certain events, for example modifications to services. See pp. 65 - 66 in manual for full details. This limitation only matters if:

1. You are using Interactive Mode (full HIPS alerts enabled).

2. You actually knew what the IT gobbly-gook in the alert means. In other words, you aren't going to miss the alert because it is extremely likely that you will simply "Allow" because the infos in the K HIPS alerts make no sense... except at the developer level.

Don't get bent out-of-shape. As is, K got you covered... including all unauthorized/unknown/malicious scripts if you adhere to following:

• Enable Trusted Applications Mode and lock-down system.

• Dis-able "Trust Digitally Singed Applications."

• Enable "Automatically move unknown applications to Untrusted zone (Block)."

With those settings you can't get infected unless malwares gets on your system via installed trusted application update or K allows it to be installed because a rule for it exists in the Kaspersky Security Network database... both very unlikely.

Don't get down about it... K is only 32 bit and it still manages to consistently and handily spank its competition... even BitDefender if you ask me.

 

[Tony Cole]

Thanks hjlbx I have automatically move unknown applications to untrusted, when I enabled, or went to enable Trusted Application mode it found 729 unknown objects mostly in Google Chrome's app data. Do you know how to get around that, as I take it that must be where the bookmarks and cache etc., is stored?

 

[hjlbx]

Thanks hjlbx I have automatically move unknown applications to untrusted, when I enabled, or went to enable Trusted Application mode it found 729 unknown objects mostly in Google Chrome's app data. Do you know how to get around that, as I take it that must be where the bookmarks and cache etc., is stored?

Do you have any malware packs currently on your system? If so, they need to be deleted.

Make sure you run a full system scan and clean-up before running the TAM scan.

* * * * *

There should be a bunch of unknown items (scripts and files) from:

C:\Users\TonyCole\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\INetCache\

Plus if you have a lot of installed apps that are not in the KSN database (unlikely, right?).

K always suggests this step be taken prior to running TAM scan, but they don't mention it in the manual:

Run cleanmgr (built-in Windows Disk Cleanup utility)

Select (check):

• Downloaded Program Files
• Temporary Internet Files
• Recycle Bin
• Temporary Files

Select OK.

You can also run Wise Cleaner portable - all the available clean-ups - for good measure.

Post back here the new unknown app #.

 

[Rebsat]

Thank you bro. Great post

 

[sinu]

Please correct 'Emsisoft Internet Security9.0.0.4985'

Good work
Can you include the following points:
1. CPU and RAM usage during scan and ideal
2.CPU threads used by each suite
3.PC boot up and shutdown time
4.time taken by any application to launch
5. time taken by GUI to open

 

[Viking]

Nice review!

 

[hjlbx]

Good work
Can you include the following points:
1. CPU and RAM usage during scan and ideal
2.CPU threads used by each suite
3.PC boot up and shutdown time
4.time taken by any application to launch
5. time taken by GUI to open

Whatever I report will be specific to my own system ... and will be different on your system. However, the trends will generally be the same.

For example, Kaspersky will be heaviest - and then a toss-up between ESET and Emsisoft...

There is no substitute for trying each one on your specific system. In the end, you may see something totally different in regards to resource usage than everyone else.