Battle ESET Smart Security vs Webroot SA Antivirus

[uxbal]

Hi,

So, Webroot vs ESET.

I like that Webroot is light, however, I'm concerned they don't to that well in a lot of testing.
I like ESET SS because it seems to be an affordable and comprehensive protection.
I also like both offer firewall.

Which would you choose?

 

[vindiesel]

ESET's very best friend.

 

[Ankh]

Eset is light, strong, friendly and for me, the best AV i never had in my computer.

 

[Nevi]

After Neil.J Rubenking from PC mag.chose Webroots antivirus as editors choice,I chose to trust it completely (I have used it since the PrevX days together with sandboxie).It has since shown to be a good decision.Eset have a good antimalware engine too,and I have used it some years, back in the days.But for me the light footprint (ekstreme) and outstanding malware blocking properties as WSA actually have is irresisteable for me.With that said,I understand those that trust/want Eset,cuz it really is one of the topcontenders,so it must be up to personal preferences.

 

[Sr. Normal 2.0]

Eset here. I do not see flaws in this AV. I do not see defects in this AV. I especially like that when I tested in the VM,the host detected outputs to fraudulent pages of the guest.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

All I will say is I had the pleasure of beta testing Webroot for a good stretch,
I am still listed but not actively testing Webroot.
I would honestly choose ESET hands down.
Thanks uxbal

 

[Lucent Warrior]

Full suite vs Av.. This part depends on you, both offer very good protection. Webroot has a beta out now that fixes the firewall outbound connection usability for windows 8,8.1,10. The next stable release will reflect this feature being usable again on those editions. Once that is completed, it would be a toss up on which i would suggest.

 

[Omnipotent]

Use ESET, It's lightweight and is the fastest at adding threats to their database. Malware creators struggle to bypass ESET, also ESET is known to purchase crypters on black hat forums to reverse engineer. There's no need for SS. Save your money and grab a copy of NOD32. Windows Firewall alongside your router firewall + GlassWire is sufficient imo. A few more recommendations would be to use Kaspersky or Emsisoft as well, they're all great antiviruses. Emsisoft is also lightweight and uses it's own engine alongside BitDefender's which is better imo, since the standalone BitDefender is known to be heavy/buggy on systems.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

the only advantage I can find with webroot is its lightness. the rest I believe eset is better
Eset has better signature (offline) and it has been doing well in tests made by av-tests, AV-comparatives,... Eset can protect you better while offline
WSA only does well in pcmag reviews while other "top" AVs do not. I doubt if there is any bias here.

You also can see the vote result

WSA has done so-so in MT malware tests

 

[Exterminator]

Hard to compare ESET Smart Security to Webroot Secure Anywhere because ESET Smart Security contains a Firewall and a host of other tools.
Please edit this to ESET Nod32 Antivirus which would be a more appropriate comparison to WSA.
For that reason I did not vote.
I voted ESET based on using EAV with Windows Firewall however it is very close in comparison.
You cannot go wrong with either one.

 

[Lord Ami]

I like Webroot because it has

These two act like default deny unless it's a known program. From day-to-day use, I don't see any Webroot popups. Everything works and is fast

Out of the box? ESET beats WR.

But if you tweak it like I have, it's pretty much bullet proof.
Moreover - Identity Shield has been key feature in MRG banking trojan tests.
Does offer extreme protection against any type of malware that is trying to spy on you.
That is, if Identity Shield protects (automatically or manually added) program that is used for sensitive information input/output.
Finally - beta's Web Driver offers quite aggressive web blocking. Even with Adblock and my browsing habits I see web pages/parts of webpages blocked.

 

[Tempnexus]

I used and am using both. I still think of Webroot as an add on security device and not a full antivirus. I am yet to see Webroot catch something before ESET and I used to run those two consecutively (until June of this year) for the past 5 years. I finally gave up on Webroot since the only thing I used them for in the end was keylog protection and now I am relaying on Hitman Pro Alert for that area.

Webroot is light but personally I find it very very shady on what and how they do things. I don't honestly know how effective they are...their rollback thing is something to question...ok you get infected and it logs your accounts and everything and your firewall is crap at this moment so how are you going to stop it????


Edit:
I left the webroot 5 account user just on my wife's account (2 PC vs 5) I have uninstalled it on my 3 PC's I don't honestly need it anymore unless they show some promise.

 

[Nevi]

I have thought about the roll back thing too,and I agree.But WSA+ has kept my machine free of everything nasty in 5-6 years,and I think it is more or less as effective as Eset in blocking malware today.
Also I do admit I visit shady places sometimes,and there has been some times where WSA blocked malware such places.
But lets see, I will be the first to write about it if I get infected.

 

[Ana_Filiz]

I chose Eset as it adds very quickly the new malware to their database. This means 2 things IMO: they produce it or they buy it!

 

[Soulbound]

Both are good and take different approach.

ESET takes the HIPS mode as a means of protection, based on policy rules, while Webroot will use the roll back feature, which is only triggered when infection is known in their database.

I prefer proactive versus reactive basically.

ESET has cloud + definitions loaded in RAM, therefore a slight ram usage, whilst Webroot relies mainly on cloud.

I/O whilst scanning however ESET has the upper hand as well as system responsiveness compared to Webroot, and this is in a i7 Quad. more noticeable in mid end systems to low end systems.

 

[Tempnexus]

Both are good and take different approach.

ESET takes the HIPS mode as a means of protection, based on policy rules, while Webroot will use the roll back feature, which is only triggered when infection is known in their database.

I prefer proactive versus reactive basically.

ESET has cloud + definitions loaded in RAM, therefore a slight ram usage, whilst Webroot relies mainly on cloud.

I/O whilst scanning however ESET has the upper hand as well as system responsiveness compared to Webroot, and this is in a i7 Quad. more noticeable in mid end systems to low end systems.

Yeah I apologize I wasn't too articulate yesterday (was tired as heck).

Yes that is what I meant by getting infected and the roll back feature. Sure, you can roll back the infection and the damage done (hopefully/maybe). However, what happens between the time you are infected and it's discovered? Does WSA protects your information then? What if the data leaks out of the system? I mean the WSA used to have a nice firewall but that got abandoned when Win8 came out. So the whole "will stop data leak" thing is currently a lie, if you are using Windows 8 or above.


Also, I've been having some issues with WSA key encryption working when a browser is inside Sandboxie. It works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. Haven't had that issue with HMPA yet.

 

[FleischmannTV]

Personally, I would go with Emsisoft Anti-Malware or Kaspersky Internet Security, but between these two, I'd choose ESET. I have little faith in Webroot's post execution behavioral monitoring and containment technologies, but that's what it's resting upon because initial detection is among the lowest in the industry while ESET has the highest. ESET may be weak against certain zero-days but that would only swing in Webroot's favor if its "strengths" were so sound that they would outweigh ESET strengths, which they don't, in my opinion.

 

[jamescv7]

Both are good at all.

It seems differ how the optimization of protection differ.

ESET = stronghold detection signatures, HIPS, combined techniques to ensure bypass is pretty difficult.
Webroot - light, efficient through cloud detection and the features are already fine on casual matter.

I think they play differently when comes on threat detection analysis cause one of them have the edge to gather valid threats.

 

[woodrowbone]

I find this to be the best features of WSA:

Remember when watching, this video is four years old.
Not that WSA is bulletproof, but no software is I guess.

/W

 

[Kuttz]

Just going through the Malware Hub tests here alone proves ESET superiority over Webroot