Battle Emsisoft vs Norton

[Spirit]

Emsisoft vs Norton

 

[House_maniac]

i guess emsisoft will have better detection but norton uses its own engine and solar protection i found norton to have a decent protection! emsisoft on the other site uses various engines!isnt it?

 

[imsoadude]

My vote would have to be emsisoft for the better detection with the dual engines

 

[Deleted member 178]

Emsisoft, because:

- dual engine (Bit defender & Emsisoft)
- better detection
- faster scanning & removal

 

[LoftedAphid86]

Norton.
Emsisoft's own engine is rather poor at detecting compared to Norton's own engine.
Emsisoft using the engine of another product is irrelevant when said product could be obtained as a standalone product to get similar detection results. Not to mention that Emsisoft never seems to bother whitelisting any false positives that the other engine that they use detects. That is evident of bad integration, if you ask me.

 

[enaph]

Not to mention that Emsisoft never seems to bother whitelisting any false positives that the other engine that they use detects. That is evident of bad integration, if you ask me.

Not true. If you submit a FP to Emsisoft it is always removed. Doesn't matter if it is AV or Safe surf module - submitted FP is always whitelisted.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Emsisoft's own engine is rather poor at detecting compared to Norton's own engine.

EAM engines unlike Gdata can't be dissociated, so that point is irrelevant.

Emsisoft using the engine of another product is irrelevant when said product could be obtained as a standalone product to get similar detection results.

yes same detection but without the bloat, i personally prefer using EAM than Bit Defender.

 

[Spirit]

Actually the question is misleading and it have two answers.

1....Emsisoft is better in detection
2.....Norton is better in performance

And in protection I think both are equal

 

[Deleted member 178]

And in protection I think both are equal

yes i didn't see much difference in our test

 

[Littlebits]

Both are so close that I would not be able to pick one.

Norton is better for novice users, which it is basically designed for.
Emsisoft has improved so much over the years that I would say it just as good as Norton especially with the new BitDefender engine.

Both suffer from high false positives, Norton is actually worse now since they added the community watch. Emsisoft has gotten better with false positives but still has too many. Of coarse that may change since they dropped IKarus and moved to BitDefender.

I'm not sure if Norton has fixed the problem with exclusions, the community watch appeared to ignore your exclusion list and delete detected files anyway. That was my main complaint since it has so many false positives and it deleted many safe files that I wanted to keep without notification, I haven't tried the latest Norton because I don't know if they fixed this problem. Emsisoft's exclusion list works the way it should so it is easy to deal with false positives.

For protection, detection and removal both Norton and Emsisoft are about the same.

Thanks.

 

[Spirit]

Diplomatic answer by Littlebits

Tried today both on same computer with system image restore.
Trust me browsing is much faster with emsisoft but computer is slow in compare with norton

 

[madyrocksin]

apart from performance issue i guess the only difference would be the repair capabilities,
Norton got a better repairing capabilities than many of the famous AVs, that is totally my opinion, would love to be rectified

 

[Plexx]

depending on what the user is looking for, both are good.

NAV on my other laptop runs perfectly fine, no slowdowns.

EAM was ok but not for gaming. For gaming, I noticed NAV slightly better.

Detection rate EAM.
FP, EAM mainly has more FP than NAV
Cleaning capabilities Both
Features: NAV has more
Web protection: NAV
Install and forget: NAV
RAM usage/ I/O /CPU whilst scanning: NAV has the upper hand here.

Type of user:
Beginner/intermediate: NAV
Advanced (with combos mainly): EAM

And the list goes on...

 

[Spirit]

Hi Biozfear,
Is Nav have better web protection than Eam? Are you sure.

 

[Plexx]

Hi Biozfear,
Is Nav have better web protection than EAM? Are you sure.

On tests I tested, NAV did seem to protect the user better against zero day links than EAM. Tests on both were done for a week.

It can still be argued but that is what I observed.

 

[Spirit]

Hi Biozfear,
Is Nav have better web protection than EAM? Are you sure.

On tests I tested, NAV did seem to protect the user better against zero day links than EAM. Tests on both were done for a week.

It can still be argued but that is what I observed.

I have found norton dns superb in blocking dangerous website but norton safeweb however is not that aggressive

 

[LoftedAphid86]

Emsisoft's own engine is rather poor at detecting compared to Norton's own engine.

EAM engines unlike Gdata can't be dissociated, so that point is irrelevant.

That point is irrelevant, considering that this thread is about comparing Norton to Emsisoft.

 

[Deleted member 178]

You miss what i meant (or i was not clear enough )

i trying to say that comparing the "inhouse" engine of EAM alone without the Ikarus or BD part with Norton is useless, since they are blended together unlike Gdata, which you can select which engine to use.

 

[LoftedAphid86]

You miss what i meant (or i was not clear enough )

i trying to say that comparing the "inhouse" engine of EAM alone without the Ikarus or BD part with Norton is useless, since they are blended together unlike Gdata, which you can select which engine to use.

It's still not what they've done.
It's like considering Firefox to be the best browser because the highest amount of add ons have been developed for it.

 

[looda]

Emsisoft