Level 4
Maybe it depends on the system.For me, i am using Mcafee internet security ,before i used Avast and then KSCF and i can say the diferrence is huge on impact.Mcafee is much more lighter from both, not in numbers, but in reality,i mean apps,surfing etc.The most annoying is opening the GUI, take ages, but after installing 1903 this also got better.
Same for me, everything is blazing fast, and the numbers as per photo, are very low.


Level 27
Content Creator
But just about all of them, don't let you whitelist a file when it is detected.
Forticlient allows whitelisting. It's tough on questionable files when using @Slyguys's settings. However, my senses are that it isn't a light application, maybe more like Kaspersky Security Cloud that way. Trouble is F-C doesn't do anything special. For desktop use, I use F-C with Comodo Firewall and for laptop KSC and Comodo for now. With the web filtering, F-C is excellent as a straight a-v...

If Avast were super-light, I wonder if it would provide as much security as it does now. For sure Avast devs seem to have always gotten how to handle questionable files very well. Using the program for 7 years, I never had a question about the quaratining of a file. It saved my bacon several times when downloading things back before freeware was readily available (2007-2010). Avast is not a light program though. Also, too bad Avast now collects so much data and so on. I really like the program so much in spite of the twinge toward heaviness and the data issues...

low L!fe

Level 6
who is better GDATA Internet Security or McAfee Total Protection?
It is better in your opinion
McAfee MG Data
Av-Test show that McAfee is more reliable
Also in Web protection, we see McAfee Web Adviser Win works more efficiently
In terms of performance, McAfee is superior
But it is stronger in protection who is stronger VS Ransomware , Keyloggers , rootkits ,Firewall.


Level 20
Possibly. I have no issue at all with known malware being auto quarantined. The problem is that a lot of files detected by antivirus software are not actually malicious, for example PUPs, or installers which come bundled with or can download and install other software.

While it would be good if known malware was auto quarantined and users were prompted when something that isn't malicious is detected, there is a big issue with that. Very often, harmless PUPs are wrongly detected as malware. This would lead to files which aren't threats, being auto quarantined too. I don't care if keygens and cracks are auto quarantined, but I do care, if some safe driver updater software is. As a result, I think the best approach is to have auto quarantine as a default setting, but for there to be the option for advanced users to disable it.

The argument against this, put forward by AV companies, is that some users, when prompted when malware is detected will choose to whitelist it and infect their systems. But, if auto quarantine is enabled by default, I don't see this as too much of an issue. Even with auto quarantine, people can disable the real time protection and run malicious files.
For EAM i found it has a good feature in which it scan quarantine contents after each update and pop up notification for detected false positive which safe to restore (also have an option to re-scan Quarantine contents.

EAM Quarantine.PNG