Eset Nod 32 vs Kaspersky AV

[Venustus]

Please state your preference.
Thanks!

 

[elquenunca]

eset or kaspersky any of the 2 is good, eset maybe slow down the computer less

 

[L0ckJaw]

ESET, because its good, fast , light and great detection ( see my hub tests )
I personally dont want anything to do with Russian products.

 

[RoboMan]

Yeah at the expense of small bit protection ...


so at this point it is better to choose ESET

Aforementioned, that thread focuses on protecting and being as light as possible. For example, it makes good use of Application Control to contain unknown files, and only scans files on execution to reduce system impact.

Nevertheless, If I am not mistaken, Kaspersky Antivirus edition does not include Application Control; and that's the main reason I would pick Kaspersky. Of course, System Watcher is great but AC gives the product the first line of defense to avoid unknown file executions.

In this case, I would go with ESET's great, quick signatures, configure it correctly: Q&A - Configure ESET Antivirus for Maximum Security (by RoboMan) and throw on top SysHardener/OSArmor. That would be my specific choice in this scenario.

 

[ZeroDay]

I'll mirror most comment here - KAV for security Eset for performance.

When It comes to security I think Kaspersky are simply the best. That's not Bias I'm using Norton at the moment. It's just fact, Kaspersky has been consistently solid for a very long time. Their only real issue in the past was how heavy their products were. Anyway AV wise Kaspersky has probably THE best BB and equally good signitures and cloud. Esets is lighter with great signatures too but [protection wise it's no match for KAV. I'm pretty sure Kaspersky security Cloud Free tweaked would protect a system better than most, if not all paid AV's.

 

[beavisviruses]

Yes i should have placed it in the comparison
Is there a major difference between the free K and paid K ?

Kaspersky paid has application control and some extra modules activated that in the free are not.

 

[beavisviruses]

Aforementioned, that thread focuses on protecting and being as light as possible. For example, it makes good use of Application Control to contain unknown files, and only scans files on execution to reduce system impact.

Nevertheless, If I am not mistaken, Kaspersky Antivirus edition does not include Application Control; and that's the main reason I would pick Kaspersky. Of course, System Watcher is great but AC gives the product the first line of defense to avoid unknown file executions.

In this case, I would go with ESET's great, quick signatures, configure it correctly: Q&A - Configure ESET Antivirus for Maximum Security (by RoboMan) and throw on top SysHardener/OSArmor. That would be my specific choice in this scenario.

but the kaspersky signatures are just as fast as Eset's

 

[beavisviruses]

Pup protection: Eset
Firewall: Eset and Kaspersky
BB: kaspersky
proactive protection: kaspersky
static detections: Eset
performance: Eset
Aplication Control: Kaspersky
Cloud Protections: Kaspersky
Ransmware Protections and remediates: Kaspersky
Protections in 64 bits: Eset
(kaspersky no have products in 64 bits)

winnner: Kaspersky. This is my review and opinion

 

[Burrito]

static detections: Eset

No way Beavis.

Kaspersky is stronger in static detections.

I'm very disappointed.

I think you turned into an ESET lover..

 

[marcopaone]

Pup protection: Eset
Firewall: Eset and Kaspersky
BB: kaspersky
proactive protection: kaspersky
static detections: Eset
performance: Eset
Aplication Control: Kaspersky
Cloud Protections: Kaspersky
Ransmware Protections and remediates: Kaspersky
Protections in 64 bits: Eset
(kaspersky no have products in 64 bits)

winnner: Kaspersky. This is my review and opinion

I think Kaspersky firewall isn't so good

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

Protections in 64 bits: Eset
(kaspersky no have products in 64 bits)

winnner: Kaspersky. This is my review and opinion

Every 32(x86) bit architecture based application, runs perfectly on 64 bit architecture.. This has nothing to do with products in 64 Bit!

 

[beavisviruses]

Every 32(x86) bit architecture based application, runs perfectly on 64 bit architecture.. This has nothing to do with products in 64 Bit!

already and a 64-bit application can be run on a 32-bit arquitecture? In fact I am surprised that Kaspersky does not use 64-bit architecture because all antivirus programs have 64-bit protection

 

[blackice]

No way Beavis.

Kaspersky is stronger in static detections.

I'm very disappointed.

I think you turned into an ESET lover..

View attachment 219048

I was thinking this thread had been so civil. Personally I’ve found ESET IS works nicely for my system. Once I learned how to work in the HIPS system I found it to be light with good control. And the web filtering is a-plus.

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

already and a 64-bit application can be run on a 32-bit arquitecture? In fact I am surprised that Kaspersky does not use 64-bit architecture because all antivirus programs have 64-bit protection

G data too relies on 32 Bit architecture..
No offence.. The application runs perfectly.
Every 64 bit application, might not run on 32 bit /might be some errors spur off

 

[beavisviruses]

G data too relies on 32 Bit architecture..
No offence.. The application runs perfectly.
Every 64 bit application, might not run on 32 bit /might be some errors spur off

G data is a double engine antivirus does not count, I speak of single engine antivirus, most use 64-bit architecture

 

[Wraith]

Pup protection: Eset
Firewall: Eset and Kaspersky
BB: kaspersky
proactive protection: kaspersky
static detections: Eset
performance: Eset
Aplication Control: Kaspersky
Cloud Protections: Kaspersky
Ransmware Protections and remediates: Kaspersky
Protections in 64 bits: Eset
(kaspersky no have products in 64 bits)

winnner: Kaspersky. This is my review and opinion

For the first time I agree with you. Summed up very well and perfectly.

 

[Nightwalker]

already and a 64-bit application can be run on a 32-bit arquitecture? In fact I am surprised that Kaspersky does not use 64-bit architecture because all antivirus programs have 64-bit protection

Would you kindly stop writing nonsense?

 

[Wraith]

G data too relies on 32 Bit architecture..
No offence.. The application runs perfectly.
Every 64 bit application, might not run on 32 bit /might be some errors spur off

A native 64-bit application can use some additional benefits like 64-bit process execution and using large amounts of memory but yeah those necessarily aren't needed for an AV, they're required by games, drivers.

 

[Nightwalker]

All antivirus running on 64-bit SO uses a 64-bit driver, usually the user interface components are 32-bit even on 64-bit systems because there are no huge benefits in doing this (rewrite costs).

These do not actually need to be 64-bit applications, as all of the actual work is done by the service which is a native 64-bit application when installed on 64-bit editions of Windows.

Kaspersky has some limitations on 64-bit editions of Windows because of PatchGuard, but this limitation is applicable to every solution in the market.

 

[Burrito]

All antivirus running on 64-bit SO uses a 64-bit driver, usually the user interface components are 32-bit even on 64-bit systems because there are no huge benefits in doing this (rewrite costs).

These do not actually need to be 64-bit applications, as all of the actual work is done by the service which is a native 64-bit application when installed on 64-bit editions of Windows.

Kaspersky has some limitations on 64-bit editions of Windows because of PatchGuard, but this limitation is applicable to every solution in the market.

WTF?

Regular Beavis is already a handful.

Rogue Beavis..... could be frightening.

 

[Nightwalker]

View attachment 219080

WTF?

Regular Beavis is already a handful.

Rogue Beavis..... could be frightening.

I wont say anything about this because I fear that my inbox will be full of "nice" and "pretty" messages again