App Review Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium BETA

It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
Content created by
Shadowra

Shadowra

Level 41
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Tester
Well-known
High Reputation
Forum Veteran
Sep 2, 2021
3,021
38,749
3,980
29
France
Malwarebytes is a well-known American anti-malware program.
It has made a name for itself in the world of computer disinfection (where it is often used), but the company is starting to turn it into a real anti-virus (even if it isn't one yet).
According to the publisher, major changes have been made, including a new engine for detecting PowerShell attacks and malicious script detection.
(Note that to benefit from these features, you need to go through the BETA update. Please note that using a BETA version may entail risks, as these are not finalized versions)
Let's have a look!



Interface :

Malwarebytes has completely changed its interface, and to be honest: I like it best!
It's elegant, modern and simple.
Surprisingly, Malwarebytes now includes additional features such as repair systems, cleaning systems and, above all, Windows firewall control!
All in all, a pretty complete security solution.

Power consumption: The software is fairly light, but can quickly become CPU-hungry during large scans.

Web protection: 10/10
Malwarebytes blocked all infected links

Fake crack : 0/1
The file and its droppers have not been detected (3 of them)

Malware Pack : Remaining 45 threats out of 108
What can I say? There's so much to say!

For a start, Malwarebytes hasn't lied, and has indeed included a new engine. We can see it reacting to VBS and JS!
I also liked the fact that Malwarebytes blocked numerous attacks via PowerShell detection, which I really appreciated.
It also blocks malicious connections, as seen on scripts and the ConnectWise dropper that can't connect.
But that's all Malwarebytes does.
It's a good start, but still not enough.
After all, some malware installs itself without reacting, quickly infecting the system.
Progress is being made, but there's still room for improvement.
Memory is infected in the end, the machine is riddled with infectious scripts and Malwarebytes bombards with Web blocking alerts.

Final scan :
Malwarebytes : 21
NPE : 23
KVRT : 20 - Memory infected
Emsisoft : 6

Final opinion:

Malwarebytes is continuing its investments and efforts.
These efforts are to be commended, since at the time it was unable to defend itself adequately against a malicious script, it can now do so via its own detections or via the behavior of a PowerShell script. But only if it knows about it.
It also integrates Windows firewall configuration, which I think needs a bit of work, as there are no notifications.
These are fine efforts, but there's still more to be done, such as including a solution for blocking suspicious and risky behavior and fine-tuning threat detection, which remains fairly average.

@nickstar1 request
 
Thanks for your detailed review of Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium BETA! It's great to see that they've made significant improvements, especially in PowerShell attack detection and malicious script detection. However, it's clear that there's still room for improvement, particularly in terms of threat detection and blocking suspicious behavior. Your feedback will surely help others in the forum make an informed decision. Keep the reviews coming!
 
Never been big fan of malwarebytes, had no high hopes of results

i like the malwarebytes browser guard, anti-exploit tool and adwcleaner alot though.

Hopefully its improves as its only beta version , thanks for review(y)
Strangely, AVC ranks MB before major AVs such as K and ESET!
2025-07-18 17.23.00 www.av-comparatives.org 846d2198f0a2.jpg
 
curious to see mbam do well (100%) at AV Labs (but most av tested there do well...) I had made mbam registered primary on a VM, but I think not the beta version. I am going to leave it as is and see if it melts down, although I don't push it hard like @Shadowra does for the videos test. Thanks again for all your testing!

 
Is it because this is a beta version that was tested, part of @Shadowra's disclaimer?
i don't think so i posted a yt test recently by a tester and my own findings concur. Shadowra has been kind enough to give it an average rating. i would simply say it's one of the worst paid AVs that i have ever tested especially with zero day malware.
 
I do not know, but I am more convinced by Shadowra test results than AVC and AVLab ones.
However we have to keep in mind that those guys test several AV's at once so we are able to compare which have good results and which have bad. When you are testing only one AV at a time we don't know which other AV's would have done worse or which would have done better with the same test. But yah, I love his tests as well, all testing gives one knowledge to form an opinion as to which AV you choose.
 
However we have to keep in mind that those guys test several AV's at once so we are able to compare which have good results and which have bad. When you are testing only one AV at a time we don't know which other AV's would have done worse or which would have done better with the same test. But yah, I love his tests as well, all testing gives one knowledge to form an opinion as to which AV you choose.
Excellent point 👍
 
I do not know, but I am more convinced by Shadowra test results than AVC and AVLab ones.
yes, but other than the suspicion that AVs paying to have their AV tested skews the testing their favor, it would be good to know how in what meaningful way @Shadowra's tests differ from AVC & AV Labs? AV Labs got AMTSO certified which IIRC was a big deal for them. Not saying they are better tests than @Shadowra's just that it would be nice to understand testing variations. :unsure: Perhaps @Andy Ful knows. Also as @Trident has pointed out the AV are evolving and hopfully improving.
The firewall was on the "Low Filtering" setting. Maybe you need to set it to a higher setting for notifications.
I don't have the integrated firewall version installed but do run WFC with mbam and I have it set on medium most of the time. (fwiw).
 
yes, but other than the suspicion that AVs paying to have their AV tested skews the testing their favor, it would be good to know how in what meaningful way @Shadowra's tests differ from AVC & AV Labs? AV Labs got AMTSO certified which IIRC was a big deal for them. Not saying they are better tests than @Shadowra's just that it would be nice to understand testing variations. :unsure: Perhaps @Andy Ful knows. Also as @Trident has pointed out the AV are evolving and hopfully improving.

I don't have the integrated firewall version installed but do run WFC with mbam and I have it set on medium most of the time. (fwiw).
I set it to medium also; setting it to low makes no difference to WF.