@AtlBo, thanks for your comment.
I tested Comodo Firewall/CruelSister' settings with tons of malwares. It stopped 100%.
I have nothing against OSArmor or other software. Most of them are great! But in my case, I just don't feel the need for other software.
With regard to HIPs, it took me time, lot of tests, and indeed CS is right, HIPs are not going to add security if you use CS' settings. Perhaps OSArmor or another software is useful only in case of Comodo' Cloud mistakes.
With regards to UMatrix, in my opinion is much more friendly than ScriptSafe. Also, is more granular and is possible to block cookies. I dropped ScriptSafe because didn't work when I blocked cookies in FF (it seems to be a FF bug).
Today UBlock, Umatrix, ScriptSafe, NoScript etc... all are great! At the end is only a matter of user preference. I tested all of them, and UMatrix is my preferred. I don't need ad blocker, anti-tracking, not even need hosts. Tthe UMatrix' firewall does 90% of the work. And it is lightweight! It is true that UMatrix is bigger than ScriptSafe or NoScript etc, but it has no effect with RAM/CPU.
You are right that UMatrix is not enough, specially when you need to unblock webpages/scripts.
There you need something extra external, or in my case an add-on (Malwarebytes etc).
Heimdal seems great, and as I said, most of the software are great. I just don't like overlapping, lot of software having similar functions. I don't care about perfection. For me is enough a balance between protection and performance. That is the reason I don't use Heimdal or other software.
But again, thank you for your recommendations!
If I am forced to pick another software in addition to my security combo (described in my previous comment to you), I choose AVAST Antivirus Free.
Heuristics or behavior analysis are the trend. However, in my opinion are still immature technologies.
AVAST with tons of users worldwide can detect malwares and zero-day-attacks very quickly. It is enough quickly for me. And AVAST has the less system performance impact.
Again, is only my personal opinion.
Finally and back to Malwarebytes new add-on, I tested UMatrix with hosts, and it resulted me heavier (RAM/CPU) than using other add-on exclusively dedicated to malwares. I exchanged some messages with UMatrix author (Gorhill), and he explained me that this is because UMatrix is based in another adblocker. In brief, I believe that is the reason why Malwarebytes add-on (or other security add-on) will perform better as antimalware than UMatrix with hosts.