- Aug 30, 2015
- 1,928
Based on your opinions and reasoning which is the better product.
I will still be using both products regardless of the votes.
I will still be using both products regardless of the votes.
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.x vs Zemana Anti-Malware 2.x (Premium only)
- Thread starter DJ Panda
- Start date
This is difficult. I use both as on-demand scanners. I've been using Malwarebytes for years and it's saved my butt on numerous occasions. For that simple fact alone, I'm going with Malwarebytes, but do not shy away from Zemana (in fairness to Zemana, it's a fairly new program). If anything I'd say Zemana AntiMalware feels a bit lighter, but that's really the only fault I can provide. I'll be interested to see what others think.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Jan 22, 2014
- 577
In my System conf:
Malwarebytes it's better deleting corpses.
- Resource Usage: Both.
- Real World System Impact: Zemana.
- User Friendliness: Both.
- User Interface: Zemana.
- Level of Protection and Features: Zemana have 0-day (pandora) engine, and Malwarebytes web blocker. IMO Zemana.
- Overall Winner: Zemana.
Malwarebytes it's better deleting corpses.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
Don't forget: OP is asking about the Premium versions which contain all features.
For more information about Premium:
Malwarebytes AM Premium is great software, but I do not see it's benefits for running in real-time. I would only consider using it for on-demand scanning, or as a malware removal tool.
Another reason I chose Zemana, is it doesn't have a Web Filter. I do not believe these provide any real benefits apart from blocking "known" malicious sites. If a legitimate (99% safe) site delivers a malicious payload, within minutes of getting hacked, you can rely on the threat being caught by the signatures or cloud-protection.
I am a current user of Zemana Antimalware Premium, and my opinion is non-biased.
For more information about Premium:
- Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium
- Zemana AntiMalware Premium - Block online threats before the infections take place.
Malwarebytes AM Premium is great software, but I do not see it's benefits for running in real-time. I would only consider using it for on-demand scanning, or as a malware removal tool.
Another reason I chose Zemana, is it doesn't have a Web Filter. I do not believe these provide any real benefits apart from blocking "known" malicious sites. If a legitimate (99% safe) site delivers a malicious payload, within minutes of getting hacked, you can rely on the threat being caught by the signatures or cloud-protection.
I am a current user of Zemana Antimalware Premium, and my opinion is non-biased.
- Dec 3, 2015
- 938
Both have their own strengths, MBAM pro has web blocking which is essentially a preventive feature, and then the signatures take over. Zemana multi-engine AM with cloud is better at detections obviously.In case of an infection, it is generally advised to switch off the net and that is where MBAM can come in handy in removal. Other features - Zemana has a portable version, in GUI MBAM gives more granular control( e.g. - boot time delay) while ZAM strives for simplicity. Both have heuristics/advanced feature Shuriken vs Pandora. MBAM incorporates a setting for rootkit detection.
I would vote for both. In the foresight ZAM is great, in hindsight can't do without MBAM and want them to keep developing great products.
I would vote for both. In the foresight ZAM is great, in hindsight can't do without MBAM and want them to keep developing great products.
Last edited:
Interesting observation regarding the Zemana 0-day / MB web blocker comparison. If anything, it's the MB web blocker that's done so much for me. Also, I wasn't aware that Zemana was so concentrated on 0-day. It kind of changes my perspective, a little.
@Huracan -- yeah, I didn't read the "premium". Sorry about that.
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,790
My vote goes to Zemana AM because:
- is cloud based
- is much lighter than MBAM
- have simple and clean interface
- is cloud based
- is much lighter than MBAM
- have simple and clean interface
- Resource Usage (eg: CPU, RAM) - ZAM.
- Real World System Impact - ZAM.
- User Friendliness - Both.
- User Interface - MBAM.
- Level of Protection and Features (eg: Antivirus , Firewall, Behavior Blocker) - ZAM.
- Overall Winner - Both are good.
- Aug 30, 2015
- 1,928
UPDATE added the option of voting for both if you can't decide 
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
I cannot comment much on ZAM Premium as I have yet to use it extensively. I have used MBAM premium in the past and despite its web blocking, it was a bit busier than I would have liked whilst running in RT.
For removal, MBAM has been known for it, however ZAM has come a long way.
In any case, I am a believer you do not need so many RT solutions running, so OD is fine for me on both based on the amount of times I had to clean systems with one or another. My only grip with ZAM and the same goes to HMP is its cloud base. Often than not, I am not using the internet when using such solutions, so I do not get the same result as I would if the system was connected.
For removal, MBAM has been known for it, however ZAM has come a long way.
In any case, I am a believer you do not need so many RT solutions running, so OD is fine for me on both based on the amount of times I had to clean systems with one or another. My only grip with ZAM and the same goes to HMP is its cloud base. Often than not, I am not using the internet when using such solutions, so I do not get the same result as I would if the system was connected.
- Jun 21, 2014
- 1,044
MBAM has my vot.
Way less FP the Zemana, Offline Protection (heuristics + behavior) , better removal (MBAM Chameleon), WebProtection + better protection against rootkits and PUPs.
Way less FP the Zemana, Offline Protection (heuristics + behavior) , better removal (MBAM Chameleon), WebProtection + better protection against rootkits and PUPs.
- Dec 17, 2014
- 1,345
I used to like Malwarebytes but I feel it is not as good as it used to be. Zemana Anti-Malware has more engines,cloud based and is much lighter than Malwarebytes. So I think Zemana Anti-Malware
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
ZAM is not a HMP clone. It started off like that and changed over time.
Agree however that ZAM mainly requires to be online while MBAM does not.
- Jun 20, 2011
- 1,000
- Jun 11, 2014
- 149
I have both and I would go with MBAM as Zemana just missed a trojan on my end that has been known since October of 2015. I want to apologize to the OP who was robbed of my deleted post on this... My original reply was even more helpful and insightful than this current reply. I am sorry this reply had to be watered down.
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
The reply was deleted because its not the appropriate section. You can use the appropriate sub forum for zemana to raise the issue and tag op if you want. Thank you for understanding and for listing the reason why you chose one option from original poll
- Jun 11, 2014
- 149
I appreciate your reply, I truly do, but I respectfully disagree. I felt it was very relevant. I say this because Zemana uses Avira as one of it's components. To that I merely said Avira by itself detected the trojan yet Zemana with Avira did not. I am sorry, but I don't see that as not being appropriate, if anything it brought up an interesting point IMO. A point that could help the OP make a decision.
- Jun 9, 2013
- 6,720
- Jan 14, 2015
- 1,761
sorry but in regards to signatures and detection for a specific file, this is not the section. I have recreated your post and tagged relevant users. please provide info/continue discussion on Zemana possible miss on infection
Similar threads
