Battle Eset Smart Security 6 vs Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2013

[carl fish]

Which one is better Eset Smart Security 6 vs Trend micro titanium internet security 2013 ?

If you had to pick between these two which one would you go for?

 

[jasonX]

RE: Eset smart security 6 or Trend micro titanium internet security 2013

Haven't tried Trend Micro(though I have a license) yet. Am using Eset NOd32 AV now with Outpost Firewall Pro v8 but formerly I was using Eset ESS v5. Apart from the issues I have posted in the Security Section previously I'd still choose Eset as I got comfortable using it. Don't know about ESS v6 though..

 

[tipo]

RE: Eset smart security 6 or Trend micro titanium internet security 2013

ESET because it`s light and has a good detection rate!

 

[tipo]

eset cause it`s lighter

 

[Payback]

ESS. But,many users chose TMTI (Trend micro Titanium Internet Security) also,I think McLovin uses it...

Anyway,it is up to you. Also,I tried to google the tests from YT for both vendors...but no luck. Sorry,I'll post it here when there is a link...

 

[Plexx]

Discussion of thread here: http://malwaretips.com/Thread-Eset-smart-security-6-or-Trend-micro-titanium-internet-security-2013

Could a mod close this?

 

[kunjar]

Many are concerned about the high RAM usage of ESET's products but fail to perhaps understand why this maybe the case. Consider the specifications of a mechanical hard disk drive, in particular the "latency", typically measured in milli-seconds(ms) order of magnitude 10^-3. Now consider the latency of RAM measured in nano-seconds (ns) order of magnitude 10^-9.
Clearly we see that the latency for RAM is 1,000,000 (10^6) times less than that of mechanical HDD, essentially indicating that RAM works at a rate one million (1,000,000) times quicker than slow mechanical HDDs. Many who own solid state drives will notice a HUGE performance increase in loading times of applications.
Now if an application such as ESET's offering loads its signatures into RAM of course the overall memory usage of the process is higher but the process has exceptionally quick access to the signatures (information) it seeks. If the signatures were not loaded directly into RAM and the process was required to page to hard disk drive for the signatures (information) then obviously this would impact performance negatively which, is essentially what most other antimalware applications do. (Plus vendors use tricks to hide memory usage in virtual memory, page file etc)
Most ESET user's will state how "light" the application is which, is testament to the optimisation of the product. Also, how many antimalware programs scan ALL files by default real-time with minimal impact on computer performance? Take Avast for example, it is considered to be "light" yet to achieve this it is restricted to only scanning a default set of files real-time. Change this option to scan ALL files real-time and watch how negatively it impacts your computers performance. It is not well optimised.
For these reasons i stick to ESET along with its stellar low false positive rates.

 

[Plexx]

Many are concerned about the high RAM usage of ESET's products but fail to perhaps understand why this maybe the case.

Most ESET user's will state how "light" the application is which, is testament to the optimisation of the product.

The high RAM of ESET's usage does become an issue when it is over the mentioned 100k by ESET on its homepage.

The other issue in hand is not every system has over 4GB RAM and many users run other programs which in total takes over 60% of RAM usage.

An example is: Most user who buy a laptop, will not remove bundled applications that run on the background.

Many here are aware that the term of lightness do not translate into RAM only but other factors.

avast! on the other hand is light and there is a reason for the existence of default settings. In fact, try maxing every setting on ESET and you will achieve similar impact on performance, just like any other solution.


Now onto other areas, ESET removal capabilities always been questionable when compared with other solutions, while Detection rate improved a lot during the course of version 3, 4, 5 and now 6. Version 5 (if memory serves me right) introduced a new feature which was the implementation of HIPS. Unfortunately until 2 patches later, there were no rules set by default and its mode was automatic. This basically rendered ESET useless in terms of zero day protection module.

Trend on the other hand always suffered from not being the lightest nor the best at detection rate but had other factors in its favor as which were the direct opposite of ESET.