Software to Compare
Zemana Anti Malware
CryptoPrevent
Malwarebytes

camo7782

Level 4
For the liste software, in the case there are more licenses available I alwasy refer to purchased/non-free option.
 

TairikuOkami

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
You sure ask a lot from those, besides I am a bit confused about your comparison choices.

Zemana does not provide realtime protection, so protection = zero, system impact = zero, etc.
CryptoPrevent does not have a free version anymore, in case you were trying to compare free software.
Malwarebytes is AV, so it probably would not work very well with other AV, so it is not really a secondary.
 

Burrito

Level 24
Malwarebytes is one of the most used products in the world.

It is an AV-like product. It still is designed to work with AVs, but they market it as an AV replacement.

But the malware detection rate of Malwarebytes is now pretty terrible. See 'Jump the Shark' thread.

But I've collected multiple lifetime licenses... and have a lot of computers in the household --- so I do still use it as an adjunct capability. It's GREAT with PUPs. Ironically, MBEB makes Malwarebytes even less useful as MBEB flags PUP/PUA.

So in summation, Malwarebytes is not that great and not that useful (in light of MBEB).

But for some strange reason, I still use it on multiple machines and I like having it there.
 

Burrito

Level 24
Can't find MBEB, what does the last 'B' stands for?

214083
 

Burrito

Level 24
If you want a paranoid set-up and want something that will run alongside many AVs and is really good at catching the new stuff... zero days, ransomware.... look at Cylance.

It's a much more powerful product that the things you have listed..

On my travel and 'higher risk' computers, I run a traditional AV with Cylance and other stuff...

It's a bit overkill... but when you are 'in the wild part of the web' it works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool

blackice

Level 28
Verified
Malwarebytes is one of the most used products in the world.

It is an AV-like product. It still is designed to work with AVs, but they market it as an AV replacement.

But the malware detection rate of Malwarebytes is now pretty terrible. See 'Jump the Shark' thread.

But I've collected multiple lifetime licenses... and have a lot of computers in the household --- so I do still use it as an adjunct capability. It's GREAT with PUPs. Ironically, MBEB makes Malwarebytes even less useful as MBEB flags PUP/PUA.

So in summation, Malwarebytes is not that great and not that useful (in light of MBEB).

But for some strange reason, I still use it on multiple machines and I like having it there.

I still use Malwarebytes Premium as a second layer to WD. It catches things WD doesn't always. It also has two other benefits. It has good web filtering for all browsers, without having to install extensions on other household computers that aren't mine. It also has exploit protection, and since I have an editor in the house that uses Word all day, it's a good benefit to have it running in real-time for her. I go back and forth using it on my own machine. The memory usage isn't bad if you have a decent amount and I notice no slow down. I think it gets a worse reputation than it deserves after the rough start of 3.0.
 

Burrito

Level 24
I still use Malwarebytes Premium as a second layer to WD. It catches things WD doesn't always. It also has two other benefits. It has good web filtering for all browsers, without having to install extensions on other household computers that aren't mine. It also has exploit protection, and since I have an editor in the house that uses Word all day, it's a good benefit to have it running in real-time for her. I go back and forth using it on my own machine. The memory usage isn't bad if you have a decent amount and I notice no slow down. I think it gets a worse reputation than it deserves after the rough start of 3.0.

Yeah, you are right about the web filtering. And the additional security layers for exploits and ransomware is not a bad thing.

But.... the available evidence does indicate that it's not good at wide spectrum coverage. But maybe that's ok -- maybe the additional narrow coverage it provides is benefit enough.

Again, I use it on multiple machines. I think there is benefit. Although MBAM is a shadow of what it once was... I still kinda think it is coming back.
 

blackice

Level 28
Verified
Yeah, you are right about the web filtering. And the additional security layers for exploits and ransomware is not a bad thing.

But.... the available evidence does indicate that it's not good at wide spectrum coverage. But maybe that's ok -- maybe the additional narrow coverage it provides is benefit enough.

Again, I use it on multiple machines. I think there is benefit. Although MBAM is a shadow of what it once was... I still kinda think it is coming back.

My biggest knock against recommending it is pricing. The only reason I use it is Newegg runs regular discounts on key cards. Definitely overpriced.
 
Top