ESET Smart Security vs Bitdefender Internet Security vs Kaspersky Internet Security

  • Total voters
    81
Status
Not open for further replies.

maaster

Level 1
These three are my favourites....All the three are good in their own aspects...some compromises have to be made among many factors like protection,usability,detection etc.. while considering AV products...By considering all these I feel ESET to be slightly better than the other two...I don't know why I like ESET but it's simple interface,less resource usage and better protection(not best!) makes me like this even though I liked Kaspersky and Bitdefender when I tried them:):):)let me see what others feel....
 

3link9

Level 5
Verified
ESET Smart Security vs Bitdefender Internet Security vs Kaspersky Internet Security

Even though I'm a Kaspersky guy I'm going with Bitdefender.

Bitdefender is the second lightest product out of these three, Best detection and prevention out of these three, and I prefer the UI out of the three.

Eset - Lightest of the three, Least detection out of these three (But still good), Good simple UI, HIPs, good for gamers.

Kaspersky - Second best Protection/detection out of the three, Most memory eater of the three, nice UI.

For me I rank it like this:

1. Bitdefender
2. Kaspersky
3. Eset

I was never a fan of eset except if I need it on a good gaming rig with little RAM. Its just not my taste and what I look for.
 
D

Deleted member 178

hh

ESET. Many REALLY useful feature, not gadgets.
very light. new malwares sig added to database fastly, giving very good detection.
 
P

Plexx

Re

ESET would be my number 1 choice however that would not be Smart Security either. It would be the AV module version only.

As said before, windows 7 firewall is just fine for the normal user.

kaspersky is good if you have a powerful computer.

BD, every single time I lay my hands on that product I get issues (VM and Host).
 

maaster

Level 1
RE: ESET vs Bitdefender Internet Security vs Kaspersky Internet Security

3link9 said:
Even though I'm a Kaspersky guy I'm going with Bitdefender.

Bitdefender is the second lightest product out of these three, Best detection and prevention out of these three, and I prefer the UI out of the three.

Eset - Lightest of the three, Least detection out of these three (But still good), Good simple UI, HIPs, good for gamers.

Kaspersky - Second best Protection/detection out of the three, Most memory eater of the three, nice UI.

For me I rank it like this:

1. Bitdefender
2. Kaspersky
3. Eset

I was never a fan of eset except if I need it on a good gaming rig with little RAM. Its just not my taste and what I look for.
As I said these three are best in their own aspects...
Bitdefender always has better detection rates but it requires large sized update files (approximately 110-150MB per week) compared to ESET's 15 to 20 MB per week!
Kaspersky had better detection rates but the 2013 version is poorer in terms of memory usage as well as detection..best example can be said by
quoting the samples released yesterday where ESET scores over kaspersky!
http://malwaretips.com/Thread-Malware-Pack-2012-10-18-Pack-MalwareCenter-InternetChicken
During full system scan in my computer I can't watch any movies with Kaspersky!!
Full system scan takes hours in bitdefender but still will not complete!
 

McLovin

Level 73
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
RE: ESET Smart Security vs BIS vs KIS

Their all good in their own way. Like ESET they have HIPS (not sure about Bitdefender and Kaspersky) and like Kaspersky they have a sandbox (as far as I know) so it would be up to personal preference.

Plus you might have to shorten the title a bit :-/

 

pablozi

Level 23
Verified
Trusted
RE: ESS vs KIS vs BIS

My vote goes to KIS because it's overall detection and repair capabilities.
Could be a little bit less resource hog.
 

softwarezone

New Member
From last year using ESET and it works fine on DELL netbook and slowing down of netbook while bitdefender makes it sluggish....
 
P

Plexx

RE: ESET vs Bitdefender Internet Security vs Kaspersky Internet Security

maaster said:
Full system scan takes hours in bitdefender but still will not complete!
Scan speed (files/sec) from BD was first pointed out on beta and they never really did anything.

When official version came out, I tested and it only slightly improved but still a tedious task, surpassing the slow scan speed of MSE...

Last I tried to test BD, there were updates issues which was all over their official forum.

I still maintain my opinion: Rushed beta and areas that needed urgent attention were left out until this very moment. No doubt their engine is good but what is the whole point in having an extreme good detection rate when the product becomes unusable in some areas and puts customers off, i.e. scan speed? Sure, the user shouldn't need to be staring at the screen whilst the full scan is on but over 2 hours for a less than 40gb hdd?


And companies wonder why majority of users who can afford to pay for a product use other vendors or even free versions (avast!, AVG)...
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
RE: ESET Smart Security vs BIS vs KIS

Just edit the Post Subject.

McLovin said:
Plus you might have to shorten the title a bit :-/

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7437/bfb2a92184e14a48bbac72b.png
 

maaster

Level 1
RE: ESET vs Bitdefender Internet Security vs Kaspersky Internet Security

Biozfear said:
maaster said:
Full system scan takes hours in bitdefender but still will not complete!
Scan speed (files/sec) from BD was first pointed out on beta and they never really did anything.

When official version came out, I tested and it only slightly improved but still a tedious task, surpassing the slow scan speed of MSE...

Last I tried to test BD, there were updates issues which was all over their official forum.

I still maintain my opinion: Rushed beta and areas that needed urgent attention were left out until this very moment. No doubt their engine is good but what is the whole point in having an extreme good detection rate when the product becomes unusable in some areas and puts customers off, i.e. scan speed? Sure, the user shouldn't need to be staring at the screen whilst the full scan is on but over 2 hours for a less than 40gb hdd?


And companies wonder why majority of users who can afford to pay for a product use other vendors or even free versions (avast!, AVG)...
I fully agree with you...I contacted the forum about the same issue but the reply was that there is no need to scan the entire system because of the autoscan feature in BD which frequently scans the system without using resources!
 
D

Deleted member 178

i wonder what they think when other products using their engine do better...
 

maaster

Level 1
Umbra Corp. said:
i wonder what they think when other products using their engine do better...
No doubt BD's engine is better but the scan time only makes it a problem and also the update file sizes-really large!
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
What's the targeted OS, because I know some features operate on 32-bit and not on 64-bit versions.
 
D

Deleted member 178

Earth said:
What's the targeted OS, because I know some features operate on 32-bit and not on 64-bit versions.
oh really? which ones.
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Kaspersky?

Wasn't Safe Run for 2012 only partially functional for Windows 64-bit...

Edit:
Example: (affects Kaspersky PURE 2.0) http://support.kaspersky.com/faq/?qid=208285876

Edit 2: It was directed at the OP, and not about Bitdefender..
 
D

Deleted member 178

i know that OA on x86 systems has more tweaks but i didnt know for BD.
 
P

Plexx

BD virtual mode back in beta wasnt fully working on x64. Ever since final came out, there was problems with the virtual mode (or whatever they officially call it) but was affecting both architectures.

KIS 2012 had a an issue with saferun for x64 just as Earth said.
 

Littlebits

Retired Staff
When it comes to choosing a security setup, most users try to go by detection rate according to AV testing sites, ignoring system impact, compatibility problems, amount of disk space used by the product, CPU, RAM, etc. which are just as important as the detection or even more important because if they make your system unstable it is the same effect that malware would do that you are trying to protect your system from.

Out of the main choices the best option according to all of the factors is:

1. ESET
2. Kaspersky
3. BitDefender

According only to detection rate by AV testing sites:

1. Kaspersky
2. BitDefender
3. ESET

Of coarse they are many freeware alternatives that could offer comparable protection like Avast, AVG, Avira, Panda Cloud, FortiClient Lite and MSE that don't effect system system impact or have other issues.

Remember detection rate really don't mean a thing if a product causes system problems.

Enjoy!!:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.