- Jul 22, 2014
- 63
- Content source
- https://youtu.be/p_DzLml1jZw
Kaspersky vs Bitdefender Test vs 2000 Malware (TPSC)
- Thread starter Lymphocyte
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Jan 27, 2012
- 339
It looked like Leo didn't let Kaspersky disinfect before rebooting
As usual, hundreds of samples are being launched one after the other, which is not something that is going to happen in the real world, so it's not a very good way to test the protection abilities. Also, as already mentioned, the computer was rebooted without letting Kaspersky disinfect and restart it, which is ridiculous. Aside from that. It's not a very good test when it includes harmless PUPs alongside malware. If PUPs are allowed to run and are not quarantined, it really doesn't matter as they are not malicious. Quite often antiviruses don't do very well at detecting PUPs, because they aren't malicious. I would have no issue if a separate test of just PUPs was done and no doubt, some people would find such a test useful.
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,637
True. Probably the same for Bitdefender whose disinfection routine takes a while to complete (slower than Kaspersky).
Agree with what @roger_m said. Leo himself said in the video that he doesn't even know what type of malware are there in his collection.
- May 3, 2015
- 1,540
This kind of video should be taken as nothing but entertainment. It in no way reflects the real protection afforded by the tested software. It's a failure I see in most videos of this kind. The testers don't know what is being run, count software that couldn't even run for lack of libraries as a failure from the tested software, does not allow software to run full disinfection routine, count PUPs that are not harmful, etc.
This kind of test does not even test the real infection vectors from said malware, such as emails or infected webpages, where other modules on all modern antimalware software would act before the file could even be downloaded.
In other words, do not take this kind of test as a reason to change your security solution.
This kind of test does not even test the real infection vectors from said malware, such as emails or infected webpages, where other modules on all modern antimalware software would act before the file could even be downloaded.
In other words, do not take this kind of test as a reason to change your security solution.
I, for one, am relieved to know I can safely travel around malware-infested cesspools on the internet and come out unscathed.
- Mar 9, 2014
- 546
Probably the best option is to look at a balance of performance, malware, and real-time protection. For example, consider the results here:
www.av-comparatives.org
The top free AVs would be Avast, AVG, Bitdefender, and Kaspersky.
From there, adjust to see which is lightest in your system, i.e., given both benchmark testing and what you experience as you load the browser and view many pages, browse folders with a few and lots of files, and load, view, unarchive, etc., big and small files.
And then add to that how many upgrade popup notifications show up, and whether or not it will cause problems for novice users like friend and relatives to whom you recommended the AV, and if you'll have enough free time to answer their questions or check their machines to see if something went wrong. Add to this friends and relatives who are intermediate users and notice and complain of slowdowns, including those that edit videos or play resource-intentive games.
Given that, from the four I'd recommend the ff., but with the ff. issues:
Avast - turn on gaming/silent and "do not disturb mode"; the problem is that the only way that users will know that something is being blocked is that a blue dot will show up in the system tray; I don't know what will happen if notifications are turned on, but I remember annoying upgrade notifications show up; (one thread says that this is no longer a problem with the new version of the AV);
AVG - I can't remember, but this felt slightly heavier than Avast, and I had to do an in-place repair upgrade of the OS to remove parts of it that were still in the system even after a complete, clean uninstall using the company uninstall tool;
Bitdefender - essentially set-and-forget, but also feels like it's the heaviest among the four; also, it always complains when I turn off HTTPs scanning; and
Kasperksy - an annoying popup notification for upgrading still shows up once a month (after turning off any notification settings plus those in the web portal); it also feels like the lightest in my system (a new PC running Win 11 Pro).
Lastly, about the built-in AV, it was the heaviest in terms of benchmarking, especially when core isolation is turned on. I didn't feel it when I loaded the browser (Firefox) but did when I did file operations.
Comparison
www.av-comparatives.org
The top free AVs would be Avast, AVG, Bitdefender, and Kaspersky.
From there, adjust to see which is lightest in your system, i.e., given both benchmark testing and what you experience as you load the browser and view many pages, browse folders with a few and lots of files, and load, view, unarchive, etc., big and small files.
And then add to that how many upgrade popup notifications show up, and whether or not it will cause problems for novice users like friend and relatives to whom you recommended the AV, and if you'll have enough free time to answer their questions or check their machines to see if something went wrong. Add to this friends and relatives who are intermediate users and notice and complain of slowdowns, including those that edit videos or play resource-intentive games.
Given that, from the four I'd recommend the ff., but with the ff. issues:
Avast - turn on gaming/silent and "do not disturb mode"; the problem is that the only way that users will know that something is being blocked is that a blue dot will show up in the system tray; I don't know what will happen if notifications are turned on, but I remember annoying upgrade notifications show up; (one thread says that this is no longer a problem with the new version of the AV);
AVG - I can't remember, but this felt slightly heavier than Avast, and I had to do an in-place repair upgrade of the OS to remove parts of it that were still in the system even after a complete, clean uninstall using the company uninstall tool;
Bitdefender - essentially set-and-forget, but also feels like it's the heaviest among the four; also, it always complains when I turn off HTTPs scanning; and
Kasperksy - an annoying popup notification for upgrading still shows up once a month (after turning off any notification settings plus those in the web portal); it also feels like the lightest in my system (a new PC running Win 11 Pro).
Lastly, about the built-in AV, it was the heaviest in terms of benchmarking, especially when core isolation is turned on. I didn't feel it when I loaded the browser (Firefox) but did when I did file operations.
Last edited:
- Jun 22, 2020
- 165
- Nov 9, 2022
- 284
And very buggy
- Jun 22, 2020
- 165
I never had a bug with Bitdefender, just a problem with the widget, so I dispute your opinion.
On the other hand, I did have problems with Kaspersky, which is the one that "everyone" loves.
- Mar 2, 2023
- 803
It does come down to user experience, doesn't it, in what does and doesn't work best for us, and plays nicely with the devices and the installed software.
- Nov 9, 2022
- 284
Not me, i will never like Kaspersky !
- May 3, 2015
- 1,540
I had bugs with all major vendors so it's a question of time before being hit by something or other. Just as an example, ESET made my computers blind to all network printers. I had to open a firewall exception for every single one of them... of course, they eventually fixed the bug. It was back in version 14 if I can trust my memory...
Last edited:
Similar threads
