Battle Eset NOD32 vs Kaspersky Free

[kowalski215]

Hi everyone.
I've always been using Eset Nod32 for my MAIN system protection (Adguard, Sticky Password, Hitman pro and other software lying on his side); now my license has expired and I was wondering whether it makes sense to switch to Kaspersky Free (or even KIS if okay)
What I do care most:
1. System Performance (I've found KIS to be really heavy on my machines, but haven't tried recently and the free version).
2. Detection Rate (also user-depending).

What I do NOT care:
3. Feature fatigue - really. I'm not fond of tons-of-features antivirus. Just a light protection with good detection. No frills.
4. UI.

Last but not least: Please avoid recommending BitDefender Free - I've hated it in the past and still hate it for a variety of reason not worth explaining
Other pieces of software are all welcomed.

Thanks in advance for your help
chhers

 

[NightVision]

I'm pretty sure Kaspersky free doesn't have a behavior blocker, lame excuse for an AV in my opinion.

 

[Venustus]

I'm pretty sure Kaspersky free doesn't have a behavior blocker, lame excuse for an AV in my opinion.

No it doesn't but it is free

 

[NightVision]

Thats always an upside. But there are many free AV's with a BB

 

[Exterminator]

What operating system are you running?
I have pretty much migrated all machines to Kaspersky Internet Security 2018
Kaspersky is much lighter and has gotten much better over the last few years.
KAV is a good choice so are some others depending on your machine,OS and daily use.
If your considering using another paid solution I might stick with ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
However with your license expiring it might be a good time to explore different solutions and combinations.

 

[klaken]

KS free has behavioral signatures as part of their heuritic and they are quite frexible. So they generate adequate protection for an average one.

Also take into account the price ...

Kas + CF = is the best to be free ..

 

[Nightwalker]

Thats always an upside. But there are many free AV's with a BB

Sure, but they dont have Kaspersky engine and KSN (superior cloud), do they?

 

[amico81]

Thats always an upside. But there are many free AV's with a BB

we talk about 3 free Av's with bb or?

- Panda free (not sure, but the bb from their internet security is not really good)
- AVG/Avast free
- BD free

 

[Lightning_Brian]

No, absolutely not. I would not recommend anyone to leave the comfort zone ESET offers you to replace it with some basic software like Kaspersky Free Edition is.

To start with, I'd recommend against switching Antivirus if the actual one suits you. If you're in for changing it, I'd stay away from Kaspersky Free and Bitdefender Free, unless you are up to pair them with some couple of extra software. This two last antivirus programs lack the modules and personalization the paid versions have, and what make them such good options. In order to make Kaspersky Free worth, I would pair it up with extra software, like VoodooShield and CFW. And even there you'd have to configure them for extra lock down to replace KIS system watcher, application control and behavior blocker. I'd stick with ESET.

Couldn't have said it better @RoboMan ! I wouldn't switch from ESET to Kaspersky Free Edition at all. ESET is much better in my humble opinion.

Since you have Eseta to hold it is the lightest with good detection.
Kaspersy is a good program but personally I would not give up on Eset.

@jerzy601 I wouldn't give up on it either. Lightest protection with good detection = win win

we talk about 3 free Av's with bb or?

- Panda free (not sure, but the bb from their internet security is not really good)
- AVG/Avast free
- BD free

Avast Free is another great AV that I would recommend to anyone who is looking for a free AV. BD free would be my second or third choice with Avira Free in the mix.

Personally, if it isn't broke..... I'd stay with ESET. Otherwise, if you're looking for a free version of an AV I'd turn towards Avast Free. Avast has been through a lot of testing through the years. Don't take my word for it: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

As you can see if you click on the protection slider Avast Free has one of the best protection modules out there for a free AV. Kaspersky Free is new to the market and I cannot speak much about the free version. I have heard good things about this software, but overall I'd recommend staying with ESET if you're going to pay for a solution or go with Avast, BD, or Avira if your going for a free solution.

 

[212eta]

Switch from Eset Nod32 to Kaspersky Free?

Comparing a Shareware (Eset Nod32) with a Freeware (Kaspersky Free)?

 

[Mindware]

So, is no one going to mention SecureAPlus? The chaps have a free version too. The last time I checked on YT, they had like 100% detection & 100% prevention because they use a combination of whitelisting, multiple AV signatures and VT. VT is free, by now every AV product should have VT integrated into them. If this can be combined with CFW & KAV (SAP doesn't have KAV sig) it should pretty much be the best of signatures and behavioural protection.

 

[Mindware]

KS free has behavioral signatures as part of their heuritic and they are quite frexible. So they generate adequate protection for an average one.

Also take into account the price ...

Kas + CF = is the best to be free ..

I just remembered, about 2 weeks ago I had tested KSF + CFW, strangely KSF blocked most malware before CFW. CFW's HIPS & various features were not as fast as KSF. I executed the samples after scanning them with KSF (they were not detected by ksf signatures). All ransomeware were blocked, but a lot of adware (like 10) were missed. In my experience KAS has always been too lenient with adware, .bat scripts (like a fork bomb), etc. I will retest the combo soon to double check.

All settings were default & signatures were updated.

The samples were obtained from github & were quite old. I have lost the exact source.

 

[klaken]

When combining technologies one always acts before the other .. Ex: Cis acts before Avira or emisoft

 

[cimmay]

Eset will give the best live support when needed, plus quick answers to email questions.

 

[Mindware]

When combining technologies one always acts before the other .. Ex: Cis acts before Avira or emisoft

Yes, if both tried to do it at the same time there will be a conflict, but the question is how response time is related to prevention capacity. If an AV can't intercept the execution fast enough then it's pretty much failing to protect. A few years ago (may be 2015) I was infected by a PUP called Dergol Browser. I was using KIS. KIS did detect the PUP, but by the time it showed the notification, the PUP was already installed.

So, what determines which reacts faster?. Is it their efficacy?. KSF was faster most of the time. The only time CFW blocked the malware was when KSF completely failed.

 

[boredog]

Just did a test of Kaspersky IT and all setting on default. About 40 or 50 samples. Here is the VT results. This might help you decide what to use.
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal
VirusTotal

 

[klaken]

[QUOTE = "Mindware, post: 688697, member: 67469"] Sí, si ambos intentaron hacerlo al mismo tiempo, habrá un conflicto, pero la pregunta es cómo se relaciona el tiempo de respuesta con la capacidad de prevención. Si un AV no puede interceptar la ejecución lo suficientemente rápido, entonces no protege. Hace unos años (puede ser 2015) me infectó un PUP llamado Dergol Browser. Estaba usando KIS. KIS sí detectó el PUP, pero cuando mostró la notificación, el PUP ya estaba instalado.

Entonces, ¿qué determina qué reacciona más rápido? ¿Es su eficacia? KSF fue más rápido la mayor parte del tiempo. La única vez que CFW bloqueó el malware fue cuando KSF falló completamente. [/ QUOTE]

It's not that they do not respond quickly. It's that they take turns, but security software always has priority. This allows them to be compatible with each other.

But it does not mean that this is safe. I do not know what method they use to get priority.

 

[boredog]

[QUOTE = "Mindware, post: 688697, member: 67469"] Sí, si ambos intentaron hacerlo al mismo tiempo, habrá un conflicto, pero la pregunta es cómo se relaciona el tiempo de respuesta con la capacidad de prevención. Si un AV no puede interceptar la ejecución lo suficientemente rápido, entonces no protege. Hace unos años (puede ser 2015) me infectó un PUP llamado Dergol Browser. Estaba usando KIS. KIS sí detectó el PUP, pero cuando mostró la notificación, el PUP ya estaba instalado.

Entonces, ¿qué determina qué reacciona más rápido? ¿Es su eficacia? KSF fue más rápido la mayor parte del tiempo. La única vez que CFW bloqueó el malware fue cuando KSF falló completamente. [/ QUOTE]

It's not that they do not respond quickly. It's that they take turns, but security software always has priority. This allows them to be compatible with each other.

But it does not mean that this is safe. I do not know what method they use to get priority.

Most do not speak this language.

 

[klaken]

Yes, if both tried to do it at the same time there will be a conflict, but the question is how response time is related to prevention capacity. If an AV can't intercept the execution fast enough then it's pretty much failing to protect. A few years ago (may be 2015) I was infected by a PUP called Dergol Browser. I was using KIS. KIS did detect the PUP, but by the time it showed the notification, the PUP was already installed.

So, what determines which reacts faster?. Is it their efficacy?. KSF was faster most of the time. The only time CFW blocked the malware was when KSF completely failed.

It's not that they do not respond quickly. It's that they take turns, but security software always has priority. This allows them to be compatible with each other.

But it does not mean that this is safe. I do not know what method they use to get priority.

 

[klaken]

Most do not speak this language.

I forgot to deactivate the auto translator.
It was late and I was sleepy t.t
The funny thing is that he did not translate what I wrote XD ... just the reply.