Also why does everyone vote Kaspersky best
In all fairness, they have technology which is superior to many other vendors - they use the hyper-visor which allows them to set MSR hooks and control application execution flow system-wide from kernel-mode without worrying about PatchGuard/Kernel Patch Protection on x64 systems, giving them more possibilities in terms of zero-day protection; this also allows them to have much better self-protection mechanisms since GDI functions such as SetWindowsHookEx will be unable to affect it's GUI process, whereas this won't be the case with some other popular vendors, where this Win32 API function will successfully inject code into the GUI process regardless of the protection mechanisms already put in place for the process protection - only alternate to this would be patching win32k.sys driver.
However, I also believe that Emsisoft is the better choice out of all of them and I personally adore them, my avatar says it all... But this is because they always perform well in my tests, have a hard-working team who are not only dedicated to just making money but spend time working on decryptors (which they really do not have to do but they want to do it to help people), provide amazing support and always fix bugs quickly.
I am personally impressed with Kaspersky with what they did and I wish I could do what they did but using the hyper-visor is way out of my skill set so I can't provide much internals detail right now, but it'll require virtualization to be enabled in the BIOS (meaning you'll need hardware to support it -> Intel VT-x for example).
But at the end of the day, I cannot deny that Kaspersky do have the upper edge because they've done more than some other vendors. That doesn't necessarily mean they are "better", sometimes it's not good to do too much and go over the edge, but they've gone further than some others for sure.