Is there a consensus on which AV has the lowest performance impact?

[LDogg]

@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

 

[Moonhorse]

@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

Why quantum tho? The recent news of chrome and ublock ?

 

[brambedkar59]

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.

 

[amico81]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bribon77]

I don't think there's a consensus on which one has the least impact.
You just have to see the answers.
It's just that there are some AVs that are light.... But the best thing would be for you to try it yourself.

 

[LDogg]

Why quantum tho? The recent news of chrome and ublock ?

Just testing nothing more.

~LDogg

 

[amico81]

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)

 

[voyes]

I also tested Sophos before. It's light and good, but I dont like having to control everything on the web

 

[Evjl's Rain]

how good is their behavior blocker? there are some differences between free and pro ( pro version with extended realtime protection)

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

 

[amico81]

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

maybe some day i will give sophos a try.

 

[imuade]

maybe some day i will give sophos a try.

Yes, maybe once they implement the quarantine feature

 

[blueblackwow65]

Norton and eset for lightness, Norton for light and protection.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

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?

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.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

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?



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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Nevi]

Yes. That's the reason I wrote "on this computer". But I probably learn to live with it.