Battle F-Secure Safe vs ESET Internet Security

[JB007]

Hello,
I would like to know which of these two suites offers the best protection ?
And which is the lightest ?

 

[Cortex]

I like both of these products, F-Secure is probably the easiest AV to install, ESET more tweakable - I would use either...

 

[jerzy601]

both programs are good I would have a problem which one to choose, but the choice is probably on Eset.

 

[DDE_Server]

both programs are good I would have a problem which one to choose, but the choice is probably on Eset.

i reply to you just to tell you one thing "your avatar of legacy kaspersky Icon" is great . remind me of the beast AV when first Av solution block auto-run. one of scaring piece of shi...y malware long time ago

 

[fabiobr]

Unfortunately F-secure is charged in dollar here in Brazil.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

@JB007 Have you settled with F-Secure?

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Unfortunately F-secure is charged in dollar here in Brazil.

You can get it for 3 devices for $25

 

[Nightwalker]

You can get it for 3 devices for $25

Unfortunately even $25 is expensive for us nowadays, it is almost R$ 130 (brazilian reais), with this money you can buy almost 4 equivalent licenses of Kaspersky/ESET here.

 

[MacDefender]

It's interesting to see lately there's a few more examples of "If ESET's static scanner doesn't catch it, your system is basically compromised" with the batch file/ certutil based malware in the Malware Hub, as well as other samples (not sure if they're also script based).

Scripts can be really hard to scan because of how infinitely expressive a scripting language can be. A behavior blocker has a better chance at understanding suspicious behavior regardless of being able to decipher an obfuscated script. However, as we've seen, it's always possible to cleverly bypass a behavior blocker too so that is no silver bullet.

I find ESET's got a reputation for adapting to the times and staying relevant. I hope they're looking at some of these recent shortcomings and coming up with ideas of how to address it. Sure adding a traditional style behavior blocker is tempting, but I would be just as happy if they can surprise me with a scanning based alternative. In general they've been doing a pretty darn good job of giving behavior blockers a run for their money, frequently matching or beating the performance of multi-layered security suites by simply having the best static scanner on the market.

 

[JB007]

@JB007 Have you settled with F-Secure?

Yes I have installed F-Secure on two laptops and I'm very happy, very light and easy to use; however I'm continuing to use Kaspersky on another laptop and a desktop.

 

[low L!fe]

In the last days
F-secure better than ESET.
but eset is lighter.

 

[gigi64]

I thought F-secure Safe had a firewall
Many Years Ago I have a bad memory since version NOD33 V2.7 could not clear the virus...
I want an antivirus that has all these features:
Good Online Banking
Good Anti ransomware
Protect With Firewall
Light(In terms of Ram Usage,Cpu Usage)

 

[CyberDevil]

1. Performance and System Impact = Both
2. Computer protection (Antivirus engine, Heuristic engine) = Both but ESET may have slight advantage in heuristics
3. Internet protection (Web Guard, Anti-Phishing, Antispam, Browser extension) = ESET
4. Proactive protection (Behavior blocker, HIPS, Sandbox) = F-Secure for it's superior behavior blocking and ESET for HIPS if you want to manually create your own rules
5. Network protection (Firewall, Botnet protection) = ESET
6. Ransomware protection = F-Secure
7. Banking & Payments protection = Both

1. According to my feelings, Eset is much lighter. Avira is a heavier engine, and the new interface based on the Edge web engine is just a mammoth.
2. F-Secure protects better against 0-day threats due to behavioral analysis, but Eset is better at protecting against scripts and for pure detection (including reactive detection, offline detection, and the absence of false positives)
3. +
4. + Yes, without a lot of rules, Eset is almost the absence of proactive protection.
5. +
6. ESET may not be worse if you manually create a rule for folders with documents with access only for applications from your own white list. So I allow access to the documents only for the office and notepad.
7. The protected ESET mode encrypts keystrokes, shuts off unreliable extensions in the browser, it seems even encrypts the movement of the mouse, checks the reliability of HTTPS encryption ... It looks more impressive than F-Secure.

Additional point: Eset cannot be unloaded from memory and disabled by third-party scripts and tools, F-Secure is quite easily unloaded from memory, as already noted in its section here.

So, I think Eset is better for users with an above-average level of security understanding. For the average user, F-Secure is better due to better protection on the default settings.

P.S. Sorry I used your post as a template

 

[SeriousHoax]

1. According to my feelings, Eset is much lighter. Avira is a heavier engine, and the new interface based on the Edge web engine is just a mammoth.
2. F-Secure protects better against 0-day threats due to behavioral analysis, but Eset is better at protecting against scripts and for pure detection (including reactive detection, offline detection, and the absence of false positives)
3. +
4. + Yes, without a lot of rules, Eset is almost the absence of proactive protection.
5. +
6. ESET may not be worse if you manually create a rule for folders with documents with access only for applications from your own white list. So I allow access to the documents only for the office and notepad.
7. The protected ESET mode encrypts keystrokes, shuts off unreliable extensions in the browser, it seems even encrypts the movement of the mouse, checks the reliability of HTTPS encryption ... It looks more impressive than F-Secure.

Additional point: Eset cannot be unloaded from memory and disabled by third-party scripts and tools, F-Secure is quite easily unloaded from memory, as already noted in its section here.

So, I think Eset is better for users with an above-average level of security understanding. For the average user, F-Secure is better due to better protection on the default settings.

P.S. Sorry I used your post as a template

You explained it better than me. I learned a few things from your reply too.
About performance yeah, F-Secure or I guess Avira's engine has gotten worse since the time I posted that reply. I replied on another thread yesterday how bad F-Secure runs on my system at the moment. So performance-wise, ESET would be a clear winner for most users.

 

[JB007]

I thought F-secure Safe had a firewall
Many Years Ago I have a bad memory since version NOD33 V2.7 could not clear the virus...
I want an antivirus that has all these features:
Good Online Banking
Good Anti ransomware
Protect With Firewall
Light(In terms of Ram Usage,Cpu Usage)

I think kaspersky has all these qualities.

 

[gery79]

I am using fsecure safe and is pretty light and fast on almost everything but it lacks the firewall.....i switched to fsecure from Norton which is a really nice peace of software but their business practices are so shady ....i moved on to fS but i am kind of paranoid over the lack of firewall

 

[amico81]

I'm a F-Secure Antivirus user and the program is light like a feather. He was a winner in the Performance Test @ AV Comparatives last year

 

[Zartarra]

Both products are great. Both are running light.

F-Secure has little configuration options, Eset alot of options. For some users too many.

Eset has a great firewall, but the HIPS is all or nothing.

F-secure has a great support team.

	F-Secure​	Eset​
Malwarelinks (1500 sites)​	86,45​	89,09​
Malwarelinks download protection​	68​	11,11​
Phising links feb (1000 sites)​	97,58​	58,95​
Phising links 2 (1500 sites) ​	92,67​	99,2​
​	​	​
Malware Samples (385 samples)​	91,56​	90,66​

 

[Back3]

I tried both antivirus on my PC. I liked Eset, but it was always buggy on my system. F-Secure Safe and Kaspersky cloud free didn't give me issues. You have to try them on your device...