Not true entirely. Since December 2016, they are marketing MB as an Antivirus replacement. You can read the blog post here.Even Malwarebytes has stated it’s designed to run alongside WD. And in tandem they have shown good result, alone...not so much.
I think what @blackice stated is more correct.
And agree with blackice also that alone, Malwarebytes has not had great results. It should be combined with other capabilities.But rest assured, we continue to support compatibility if you choose to use a third-party antivirus or other security software alongside Malwarebytes 3.0.
Can I still run Malwarebytes alongside my Symantec, McAfee, etc.?
Certainly! We built Malwarebytes 3.0 to be compatible with all major antivirus software, even Windows Defender and Microsoft Security Essentials.
Well, it doesn't suggest that you have to run both, only that you can. The reason I wanted to disable WD is that running both consumed about 5-7% additional RAM, not to mention CPU usage. WD is good alone these days apart from a few limitations and UI bugs. I do not agree with your point that it would surpass Malwarebytes regarding detection. Every test in youtube suggests Malwarebytes as a last line of defense. It catches malware your traditional AV missed. That's why I decided to run MB alone as there seems to be no reason to run signature-based AV when you are connected to the cloud for the entire session. Seems like it depends on the usage pattern. If you're a regular user, by all means, run both. If you have a gaming rig, or work with huge number of files daily, I'd prefer to run MB only.I think what @blackice stated is more correct.
From the link you posted:
And agree with blackice also that alone, Malwarebytes has not had great results. It should be combined with other capabilities.
Both MB and WD have improved lately. They are probably a decent combo. Although on some systems, it could be a little heavy.
I'd still add H_D or like capability though..