LDogg

Level 28
Verified
@Moonhorse this is the same approach I have with my own system. I'm even thinking about uninstalling Emsisoft, as Forticlient has got a decent Web filter.

Also thinking about bringing back Firefox Quantum with all those extensions again xD

~LDogg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and oldschool

rockstarrocks

Level 17
Verified
Synthetic tests means nothing (for me i.e.). Try the AV on your actual PC, run a full system scan, let it adapt to your system for a few days with couple of reboots/shutdowns and then judge the AV.
Personally for my system Eset, Webroot, Defender and Avast 2019 are the lightest.
Also whether the system has HDD or SSD, how fast is the cpu, amount of ram, internet speed or even the OS version plays an critical role in performance impact of AVs.
 
Last edited:

amico81

Level 15
Verified
As @TairikuOkami noted - cloud-based AV's should be the lightest, so I'm thinking about Comodo Cloud Antivirus (while I'm still avare that no solution is fool-proof, but I just want to have at least some basic level of protection, regardless of good is it in protection, if you know what I mean).
If you try CCAV, then take a look at this thread. there you will see the tweaks/settings for a light and powerful av-solution.

Video - Bora tests Comodo Cloud Antivirus
 

Moonhorse

Level 25
Content Creator
Verified
If you try CCAV, then take a look at this thread. there you will see the tweaks/settings for a light and powerful av-solution.

Video - Bora tests Comodo Cloud Antivirus
For me ccav was just sandbox, scannin speed were slow, couldnt run some programs with gpu over cpu, swapping to WD fixed the problem, browser protection has little impact on browser and there is no any web filtering at all

For me it was simply WD + CF > CCAV in this situation
And now in WD i have worry with on-demands scan even they dont slow me down at all, but im still missing web filtering and have need for extensions so im probably moving to forticlient

CCAV beta gui looks very pretty tho
 

imuade

Level 7
Verified
For me ccav was just sandbox, scannin speed were slow, couldnt run some programs with gpu over cpu, swapping to WD fixed the problem, browser protection has little impact on browser and there is no any web filtering at all

For me it was simply WD + CF > CCAV in this situation
And now in WD i have worry with on-demands scan even they dont slow me down at all, but im still missing web filtering and have need for extensions so im probably moving to forticlient

CCAV beta gui looks very pretty tho
Have you ever tried Sophos Home?
Their web filter is good too and many people say it's lightweight
 

Moonhorse

Level 25
Content Creator
Verified
Have you ever tried Sophos Home?
Their web filter is good too and many people say it's lightweight
I do, the web filter is nice but the av is is long forgotten, waiting for something to happen in 2019
Aswell their updates broke web filter working on specific browsers atleast twice, if they really upgrade home version to have intercept x maybe its worthy then, freemium version is lacking badly

@RoboMan did you got to try out their beta , intercept when you posted about them contacting you a while ago
 

amico81

Level 15
Verified
Have you ever tried Sophos Home?
Their web filter is good too and many people say it's lightweight
how good is their behavior blocker? there are some differences between free and pro ( pro version with extended realtime protection)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi

Raiden

Level 10
Content Creator
Verified
I don't know the difference but I know the BB of the home premium version is average-below average. HMPA did most of the job blocking scripts
Have you tried the new beta? I'm curious if the new features that are coming (ML for example) improved on this? I guess the other question is, does it matter which feature blocked the scripts, as long as they are blocked? :unsure:

Yes, maybe once they implement the quarantine feature ;)
They have already implemented it. I believe they may have released a new free version already which I am assuming has the quarantine already, but they havent fully released SHP yet, which is still in beta, but the quarantine is part of it. From my understanding they are planning to release SHP 2.0 towards the end of Jan, or early Feb. (y)
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 40
Content Creator
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Verified
Have you tried the new beta? I'm curious if the new features that are coming (ML for example) improved on this? I guess the other question is, does it matter which feature blocked the scripts, as long as they are blocked? :unsure:



They have already implemented it. I believe they may have released a new free version already which I am assuming has the quarantine already, but they havent fully released SHP yet, which is still in beta, but the quarantine is part of it. From my understanding they are planning to release SHP 2.0 towards the end of Jan, or early Feb. (y)
I might perform a test for it when it is official released
btw, sophos products are not appealing to me because they always lack something I want, like self-protection (RWs encrypted SHP files => permanently malfunctioned), weak ransomware protection (SHP), very poor heuristics and signatures for zero-day malwares (always detected 20-40% of the malwares from MT hub packs, mostly 20-30%), and BB is below average according my test some months ago
 

Nevi

Level 3
Verified
After we have discussed light antiviruses, I tried yesteday to install Emsisoft with the new browser extension. Just to try and compare. There is No difference on this computer on Webroot and Emsisoft whatsoever. So I think I stay with Emsisoft. I am surpriced how light Emsisoft is with 2 scanners, behaviour blocker etc. They have really optimized that application. Nice.
 

roger_m

Level 21
Content Creator
Verified
There is No difference on this computer on Webroot and Emsisoft whatsoever.
When I last tried Emsisoft two years ago, it was very heavy on my computer and I have not tried it again. Maybe more recent versions are lighter, or it just an example of how much performance can vary from one computer to the next.