Battle ESET vs. Bitdefender vs. Kaspersky — Which Is the Best for Home Users in 2025?

[IceMan7]

I've been writing a lot about it here lately. And I even tested it on my own computer.

So, in short. For years, I've believed Kaspersky rules. Currently, it's banned in my country, but if I had to choose the best, I'd probably choose Kaspersky.

For years, Bitdefender was the only one I could challenge Kaspersky with. And now, because of the Kaspersky ban, Bitdefender is, in my opinion, the favorite. And it's quite possible that it might even be better than Kaspersky today. I haven't used it on my computer since the ban.

Eset - lightweight, lots of settings, but in my opinion, it's not in the same league of protection as Bitdefender or Kaspersky.

Regarding lightweight, I still have BD installed on three machines. Two desktops. One laptop. One computer has 32GB RAM, the rest "only 16GB."

On the desktop with 16GB RAM, I have a 512GB SSD (system) and a 2TB HDD. There's no noticeable difference (over 2 months of BD) between the performance of a computer running ESET and BD. It's just as fast, with no slowdowns, and no bugs. Scanning the entire system on maximum settings with BD took about 28 minutes, with a total of over 1,260,000 files.
It also doesn't slow down on a laptop or a second desktop with 32GB of RAM.
I don't know how it performs on machines with less RAM (e.g., 8GB), but with 16GB, the myth of Eset being lightweight doesn't apply, because BD works just as well.

And the feeling of security, fast response times (e.g., downloading files), and ATC—Eset can't compete with that.

That's my opinion. Someone else may have a different opinion.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Only Eset Smart Security Premium can compete with Kaspersky and Bitdefender, so the voting isn't very fair for Eset.

Well, why does the company reserve a very important security module in their premium version?

 

[Miraculix]

@Divine_Barakah
Because users are supposed to buy the more expensive premium version, allowing ESET to earn more money.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

Well, why does the company reserve a very important security module in their premium version?

The same reason a lot of companies leave out modules from their free versions that are in the paid.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

Kaspersky GUI operates in 32-bit , drivers and antivirus protection is working in 64-bit mode.

The antivirus is installed in the program files (x86) folder, not in program files. Therefore it works in 32 bits (with internal x64 modules), it does not have native x64 support, like all other antiviruses.

 

[stonjean633]

Kaspersky yes. But calling BD and Eset as the big three is a bit exaggerated. Not sure which planet Bot is living in but McAfee,Trend,Gen and even Sophos will object that.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

The same reason a lot of companies leave out modules from their free versions that are in the paid.

It is not the same. Free is free so that's expected, but reserving a very important security module like live guard only to the Premium offering and leaving other paying customer more exposed to attacks is not accepted.

Now if we take Kaspersky as an example what are the differences in terms of protection in the three product lines? Nothing except for some bloatware that no one needs. Norton, Avast, Bitdefender are the same.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

The antivirus is installed in the program files (x86) folder, not in program files. Therefore it works in 32 bits (with internal x64 modules), it does not have native x64 support, like all other antiviruses.

I believe Eset has been running in 64 for some years now?

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

It is not the same. Free is free so that's expected, but reserving a very important security module like live guard only to the Premium offering and leaving other paying customer more exposed to attacks is not accepted.

Now if we take Kaspersky as an example what are the differences in terms of protection in the three product lines? Nothing except for some bloatware that no one needs. Norton, Avast, Bitdefender are the same.

It's about making money, that was the point. What you are referring to "entices" users to upgrade, which is the very same thing missing modules in free versions does.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

I believe Eset has been running in 64 for some years now?

Eset when they released the 64-bit version if I'm not mistaken, they released an installer that said x64. Then they eliminated it, because now the antivirus only works in 64 bits. It doesn't make sense to use 32 bits nowadays.

 

[ForgottenSeer 116559]

Well, why does the company reserve a very important security module in their premium version?

Whether it's very important is debatable. Once a verdict has been rendered by the cloud sandbox, if not by other aspects of ESET threat intelligence, all users benefit.

ESET's rationale is the substantial cost of always uploading full sample files for analysis (up to 64 MB). According to them, offering it to everyone would require raising prices across the board. Avast's CyberCapture has similar capabilities, but keep in mind that Gen Digital is quite a large company earning ~5.25x the revenue of ESET, boasting $3.94B in fiscal 2025.

 

[stonjean633]

Eset when they released the 64-bit version if I'm not mistaken, they released an installer that said x64. Then they eliminated it, because now the antivirus only works in 64 bits. It doesn't make sense to use 32 bits nowadays.

Using Eset Live Installer will determine which architecture suits your machine. Either it's x64,ARM64 and possibly x32.

I don't run any x32 but can confirm with x64 and ARM64 installations.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Whether it's very important is debatable. Once a verdict has been rendered by the cloud sandbox, if not by other aspects of ESET threat intelligence, all users benefit.

ESET's rationale is the substantial cost of always uploading full sample files for analysis (up to 64 MB). According to them, offering it to everyone would require raising prices across the board. Avast's CyberCapture has similar capabilities, but keep in mind that Gen Digital is quite a large company earning ~5.25x the revenue of ESET, boasting $3.94B in fiscal 2025.

You've made a good point here. It makes sense.