AV-Comparatives Performance Test April 2020

[Digmor Crusher]

These performance tests are the same as the protection tests. In the protection tests there are many variables, such as how they test, settings for each product etc. They are basically for entertainment purposes only. The performance tests are basically how a certain product performs on one machine, (I may be wrong because I didn't delve into their testing methods,) but it doesn't matter. How any particular product performs on one, or even ten machines has really no relevance on how it will perform on your machine seeing that there is basically millions if not billions of different configurations. Just as the protections tests provide a very vague guideline as to actual real world protection capabilities , these test provide the same as to how a AV will actually perform on any given machine. Try yourself, only sure way to know.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

How any particular product performs on one, or even ten machines has really no relevance on how it will perform on your machine seeing that there is basically millions if not billions of different configurations.

I agree! The best way to test the performance of X product is by installing it and running it for a few days and see how it performs on your configuration.

 

[DSD27]

I agree! The best way to test the performance of X product is by installing it and running it for a few days and see how it performs on your configuration.

The disadvantage of doing that is each antivirus leaves traces behind when you uninstall them, even when using something like Revo Uninstaller.

 

[blackice]

The disadvantage of doing that is each antivirus leaves traces behind when you uninstall them, even when using something like Revo Uninstaller.

Some more than others. Unless you do it with hundreds of programs the registry is fine unless there’s a specific conflict. Left behind drivers is sloppy and a big no-no, yet a few vendors do it. I would recommend imaging right before installing and go from there. Then roll back each time until you find the one you like.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

The disadvantage of doing that is each antivirus leaves traces behind when you uninstall them, even when using something like Revo Uninstaller.

Some more than others. Unless you do it with hundreds of programs the registry is fine unless there’s a specific conflict. Left behind drivers is sloppy and a big no-no, yet a few vendors do it. I would recommend imaging right before installing and go from there. Then roll back each time until you find the one you like.

I can safely say that I have never uninstalled any security product. I just restore a system backup.

 

[blackice]

I can safely say that I have never uninstalled any security product. I just restore a system backup.

I uninstalled ESET once when I went with WD after running ESET for a few months. I had zero issues. I even ran a Sophos Home Premium trial after that uninstall and it ran fine. But since then I’m a few clean installs past and have a clean backup image.

 

[roger_m]

The disadvantage of doing that is each antivirus leaves traces behind when you uninstall them, even when using something like Revo Uninstaller.

That's why you should always run the vendor's own removal tool after uninstalling an antivirus, to ensure that all leftovers are removed. Some of the lesser known antiviruses don't publish such tools, but just every big name antivirus has one.

 

[elquenunca]

very well by bitdefender

 

[low L!fe]

i think ESET and McAfee lighter than Kaspersky and Bitdefender but not Stronger

 

[elquenunca]

in my humble opinion I think bitdefender consumes more than eset or kaspersky but bitdefender security is superior

 

[sepik]

Hello,
I did like the write up of difficulties to measure actual boot time, because of some AVs do not load their "protection modules" in early boot-stage.
I think this means severe security risk, because sophisticated (undetected) malware can then start before AV protection modules?
The same goes for windows own firewall. I think its something to do with Ring0, Ring1 etc kernel stuff?

With kindest regards,
-sepik

 

[EndangeredPootis]

Bitdefender Total Security (+ one ten and one twelve megabytes process)

Kaspersky Security Cloud Personal (+ one eleven megabyte process)

ESET Internet Security

In terms of protection, Kaspersky has better, and faster, signatures and heuristics, while Bitdefender has better web and phishing protection, Eset is slightly worse in every way except in terms of resource usage, but not a lot worse.

 

[sepik]

Hello,
Yes, ESET is a winner here in terms of memory consumption. But memory consumption does not always means that product is the "lightest".
Installing games or big software can take a lot of time. Depends on the AV solution. Some of them, while installing games for example, does check all the files. Some AVs does not(when writing). Then comes the caching of signatures etc. So many factors to measure "lightness" of an AV solution(s).

With kindest regards,
-sepik

 

[CCJW]

Task Manager is not a good memory viewer. Some developers "hide" memory. Those who do not know this, post such pictures as you do otherwise.
Also, the fact that a software uses more memory can be a very good thing. RAM is very fast.

 

[sepik]

Hello,
Please explain, how do they "hide"? I'm using free Mitec Taskmanager Deluxe, and it s quite informative about memory usage of any prosesses.

With kindest regards,
-sepik

 

[EndangeredPootis]

Task Manager is not a good memory viewer. Some developers "hide" memory. Those who do not know this, post such pictures as you do otherwise.
Also, the fact that a software uses more memory can be a very good thing. RAM is very fast.

Software such as Process explorer or Process hacker are innacurate, they show processes using many times more resources than shown in task manager.

 

[EndangeredPootis]

Hello,
Yes, ESET is a winner here in terms of memory consumption. But memory consumption does not always means that product is the "lightest".
Installing games or big software can take a lot of time. Depends on the AV solution. Some of them, while installing games for example, does check all the files. Some AVs does not(when writing). Then comes the caching of signatures etc. So many factors to measure "lightness" of an AV solution(s).

With kindest regards,
-sepik

To be honest in all the years of using different antivirus products I have not noticed any difference in download speed, no matter the product, which why I think it should not be considered.

 

[CCJW]

Hello,
Please explain, how do they "hide"? I'm using free Mitec Taskmanager Deluxe, and it s quite informative about memory usage of any prosesses.

With kindest regards,
-sepik

hide - It's a deeper expression. Investigate the phenomenon.

ex. Why antivirus uses so much RAM - And why that is actually a good thing! | Emsisoft | Security Blog

High memory usage is bad for marketing, but what do you do if you can’t avoid it? You hide it. Read from: An insider’s secret: Antivirus programs tend to hide their RAM usage

 

[CCJW]

So think twice before categorizing it as "more memory = bad software”.

 

[[correlate]]

Summarized results
Users should weight the various subtests according to their needs. We applied a scoring system to sum up the various results. Please note that for the File Copying and Launching Applications subtests, we noted separately the results for the first run and for subsequent runs. For the AV-C score, we took the rounded mean values of first and subsequent runs for File Copying, whilst for Launching Applications we considered only the subsequent runs. “Very fast” gets 15 points, “fast” gets 10 points, “mediocre” gets 5 points and “slow” gets 0 points. This leads to the following results:
Evaluating the effect of antivirus on the system (least is better)

Source:

Performance Test April 2020

Performance Test April 2020 for Microsoft Windows 10 security products released, 17 products' impact on system performance was tested

www.av-comparatives.org