Eset is better of protectionThat's really hard.. I'll take it step by step:
Resource Usage: ESET
Real World System Impact: ESET
User Friendliness: Emsisoft
User Interface: Emsisosft
Level of Protection: ESET for detection - Emsi for BB
Overall Winner: ... ESET, I guess.. (Both, are great choices, though)
behavior blocker EAM is better
- Resource Usage (eg: CPU, RAM):
ESET, but it shouldn't matter if RAM is available and not needed elsewhere.
- Real World System Impact:
ESET, though EAM can be set to scan on execution only. ESET can be set this way as well, though I don't recommend it because it could mess with Live Grid. Live Grid is out of the picture on execution if I recall correctly.
- User Friendliness:
Close match, slight advantage for ESET imho, because signature detection is more user friendly than BB alerts
- User Interface:
I like both
- Level of Protection and Features (eg: Antivirus , Firewall, Behavior Blocker):
ESET has the best signatures in the industry, period, though EAM is close behind. Both have a strong stand against PUPs, a must-have imho. Emsisoft has better zero-day protection. None have a firewall, though EAM's behavior blocker will probably detect and block dial-home activities in the early stages of an infection attempt and disrupt it the same way most firewall components of AVs do today. My vote goes for EAM. ESET has a hips though, but it's useless at default.
- Overall Winner:
I would choose EAM if I were to rely on detection for protection because of its behavior blocker.
Can I also use Emsisoft Anti-Malware as a behavior blocker only?
It is possible to configure Emsisoft Anti-Malware with a few clicks to disable the File Guard and Surf Protection. Both programs would thus behave in almost the same way. However, in order to ensure the best real-time protection possible, we advise against doing so.