Battle Norton 360 or Bitdefender Total Security?

[fabiobr]

- Lightness
- Protection
- Privacy (GDPR)
- Price
- Functions

Considering these aspects, which is better? And, of course, cost-benefit.

 

[RoboMan]

Nothing really different to me. Actually still has the same bug where game mode starts when Battlenet or the Epic Game Store are running. Which they say is not reproducible. Oh except they took out the optimizers and safe files. I hated the optimizer and like safe files...so a wash.

Safe Files was indeed interesting... Optimizer was snake oil. But not really a big loss though. I am still looking forward to the day they release an Application Control module. That's the day I'll say BitDefender surpassed Kaspersky.

 

[low L!fe]

- Lightness: Bitedefnder
- Protection:Both
- Privacy (GDPR):Both
- Price:Bitdefender
- Functions :Both

i go to Bitdefender beacause norton is very false positive and heavy.
but norton is stronger than bitdefender.

 

[videogamer1500]

- Lightness: Bitedefnder
- Protection:Both
- Privacy (GDPR):Both
- Price:Bitdefender
- Functions :Both

i go to Bitdefender beacause norton is very false positive and heavy.
but norton is stronger than bitdefender.

Norton is not stronger than Bitdefender.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Bitdefender has little settings and this annoys me.

Well for many people this is a plus. Bitdefender works without needing user interference which is good for inexperienced users.

 

[ForgottenSeer 89360]

Bitdefender is written in asm, programs in that language are ESET, Kaspersky(I'm not %100 sure),etc. they don't need to rewrite their engine from scratch, they need to improve, they need to look closely to Photon Technology plus in Bitdefender you find AVC, B-Have, Machine learning all the tools you need for not depending entirely on signature.

Their AV engine is starting to be too much nowadays. It consists of 2-3K files with a total size of 800-900 mb. Because in the case of an issue, old engine will have to be restored, Bitdefender creates 2-3 folders x 800-900 mb. On every update it writes new files to a new folder and then copies all unmodified files to complete the engine. If you receive 10 updates today, it will do it 10 times.
This whole process is very intensive on disk.
I believe the high memory usage also comes from these “plug-ins” (that’s how the definitions folder is called) being kept in memory.

This is what deters me from using Bitdefender long-term, as well as every BD-based product.
In that sense Bitdefender needs a redesign or “rewrite”. Everything else is fine.
It’s not written in ASM (that would be a madness). Its product files are standard C++ DLL libraries, just like any other AV. The interface looks like it’s C++ with HTML and CSS parser.

 

[Nevi]

Based on what I have seen lately in malware hub, I would pick Bitdefender. I thought Norton was more or less impenetrable.

 

[blueblackwow65]

neither

 

[BigWrench]

neither

I absolutely, positively, couldn't agree more!