Advice Request Performance ESET V Microsoft Defender

[ForgottenSeer 59295]

This isn't really versus its more wanted an explanation I know that every scanning engine is different but you would of thought being part of the OS Defender would be more efficient performance wise than third party AVs I am just wondering why it feels slower to use Defender v ESET.

I installed ESET the other day because of the good reviews it was getting and carried on using my PC while it was doing its initial scan and while I knew it was doing it I didn't really notice it. I have found that loading web browsers etc seem quicker using ESET of Defender and I was wondering why.

I haven't used the config tool here and I am using Defender as stock and likely to go back to it because for my use case Defender is good enough but having used ESET now I just don't understand how the system feels more responsive over Defender. Does anyone know?

 

[Kongo]

I think thats the question a lot of people want to have answered.

 

[toto]

I think it depends on the system, for some ESET is lighter and for some it isn't. And sometimes after using the same protection for a while just changing it gives the feeling of a bit of freshness. Microsoft defender is actually lighter than ESET on my laptop when it comes to browsing and opening programs, but right click takes forever to open for some reason and it is annoying. So who knows

 

[RoboMan]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Windows Defender real-time protection scanning works a bit old-school. Each executable file is scanned every time it is accessed, executed or written. Therefore opening folders or locations with several executables can be painfully slow. As well, each program is re-scanned on access, so performance can be compromised on daily basis.

This was the way it worked back then when I used to use it. If Microsoft has changed it, please feel free to indicate me.

 

[ForgottenSeer 59295]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Windows Defender real-time protection scanning works a bit old-school. Each executable file is scanned every time it is accessed, executed or written. Therefore opening folders or locations with several executables can be painfully slow. As well, each program is re-scanned on access, so performance can be compromised on daily basis.

This was the way it worked back then when I used to use it. If Microsoft has changed it, please feel free to indicate me.

That was kind of why I was asking the question. Just you would of thought that Microsoft Defender being part of the OS would be more efficient then Third Party. I was also asking because I wondered if anyone else had the same experience

 

[silversurfer]

I believe it's almost impossible to compare especially ESET with Microsoft Defender in terms of performance/system impact. MD feels heavier overall performance wise even noticeable on high-end PC.

Note: I'm using MD on my laptop every day, so it's for sure nothing like "bashing" Microsoft Defender

 

[Local Host]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Windows Defender real-time protection scanning works a bit old-school. Each executable file is scanned every time it is accessed, executed or written. Therefore opening folders or locations with several executables can be painfully slow. As well, each program is re-scanned on access, so performance can be compromised on daily basis.

This was the way it worked back then when I used to use it. If Microsoft has changed it, please feel free to indicate me.

Nothing has changed last I checked, WD is still a resource hog in comparison to third-parties.

Tests also show this, most people don't take the time to dig into the details provided, and only stare at the final results.