Performance Test April 2023
- Thread starter presntes
- Start date
- Apr 16, 2017
- 1,876
As usual MS doesn't like anyone copying files/archiving/unarchiving/installing apps.
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,094
for me, F-Secure 19.0 "feels" lighter than its impact score...(fwiw).
- Mar 2, 2023
- 792
I was thinking the same thing. The score doesn't match what I'm experiencing on my PC's, both on 10 and 11.
- Apr 24, 2016
- 6,593
The test were done on a low-end machine, results are probably better on a higher end machine.
- Jan 4, 2012
- 280
That is why, when we talk about weather, aside from its measured values there are also subjective ones. 
- Feb 7, 2023
- 1,734
The first two (K7 and Panda) don’t really do much.
I’ve not tested K7 in depth but Panda is not optimised at all and not *that* light. It scans applications again and again on every launch.
Avira is also not that light.
F-Secure’s results look a bit like an error.
Total Defence is based on Bitdefender (it is almost a full rebrand that includes Active Virus Control/Advanced Threat Defence as well) but it doesn’t look like they handle the engine too well. If the results are accurate they need to look at caching algorithms.
Trend Micro on AVC performance test always did bad. On the previous test it mysteriously was presented as light and on this test it is “heavy” again (which it actually is). Unless Trend Micro has 2 magic buttons “make it light” and “make it heavy” I don’t see how it’s possible.
The whole test doesn’t look too trustworthy to me.
Also Kaspersky (specially in default configuration) is not lighter than Norton.
I’ve not tested K7 in depth but Panda is not optimised at all and not *that* light. It scans applications again and again on every launch.
Avira is also not that light.
F-Secure’s results look a bit like an error.
Total Defence is based on Bitdefender (it is almost a full rebrand that includes Active Virus Control/Advanced Threat Defence as well) but it doesn’t look like they handle the engine too well. If the results are accurate they need to look at caching algorithms.
Trend Micro on AVC performance test always did bad. On the previous test it mysteriously was presented as light and on this test it is “heavy” again (which it actually is). Unless Trend Micro has 2 magic buttons “make it light” and “make it heavy” I don’t see how it’s possible.
The whole test doesn’t look too trustworthy to me.
Also Kaspersky (specially in default configuration) is not lighter than Norton.
Last edited:
- Jan 27, 2018
- 1,264
Do these tests even matter much, all AV's are going to perform differently on various computers depending on specs/programs etc. So what is heavy on one may be light on another. I guess they provide somewhat of a baseline for reference but I don't take much from them.
- May 3, 2015
- 1,535
I would add that I have seen security suites behave quite differently on machines with the same specifications because of a conflict with a driver version, so even identical machines may behave in different ways.
- Apr 15, 2019
- 103
For a free AV, I find Avast Free (but with a custom install) offers the best in terms of security and being light.
This is how I install it:
This is how I install it:
- Mar 30, 2022
- 226
- Apr 16, 2017
- 1,876
Overall, this chart compares similar to what I see on my own system except F-secure & Defender. F-secure should be in the left half of this chart and I have seen Defender perform much better than G Data & Trend Micro on my own system. But then I usually don't do many read/write operations on a daily basis, so take this test with a big bag of salt.
edit: Never used K7 & Total Defense. Mcafee belongs in the right half of chart and definitely worse than Defender.
Last edited:
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,634
For me, the two most important performance factors are App launching and web browsing. Downloading files can also be included in this because you wouldn't like it if your downloading is taking longer due to your AV. But it's less important. AV slowing down internet speed with or without VPN is a bigger issue.
No one really cares about app installation slowdown. An app taking 10 seconds to install with one product while 12 seconds with another doesn't matter because you are not installing new apps every day. Your already installed apps are not updating every day either.
In app launching and web browsing, looks like almost everyone is very fast in this test except Avast, F-Secure and Trend. App launching slow-down is something I have always faced in Trend and for Avast it doesn't happen always but they often slow down even 7zip, Windows Photos which doesn't happen with any other product. F-Secure slows down the launching of unsigned apps after every single signature update. I have said this before and other users verified it.
When people say that Microsoft Defender is fast on their PC, most of them are not wrong because basic day-to-day tasks like app launching, web browsing, downloading are not impacted by it.
People are also not wrong when they say MD is heavy because it surely impacts performance in some scenarios especially if it's a low config PC. I found a relative of mine using a Dual Core PC with 2gb ram running Windows 10 64 bit and MD was making the PC unusable. I had to turn off many things, uninstall pre-installed apps and install Panda Free to make it light.
Based on my experience, I would say the PC mark score in this test somehow is the most accurate representation of their performance impact on most PCs.
ESET, K7, Panda, Norton these top 4 makes sense to me though I have talked with @Trident regarding this and something he told me is definitely correct which is products like ESET, K7, Panda don't monitor as many things like API calls, do journaling etc. related things as the likes of BD, Kaspersky, Norton, Avast. It's easier to be light when you're doing less and relying highly on signature, heuristics, cloud hash checkups. So here I would give Norton bigger credit to be able to keep things light without compromising too much.
So I would say, a certain part of the test matches with my own experience.
But a performance test like this doesn't give the whole picture. It says browsing is very fast with basically every product but many members on the forum said that they can feel Kaspersky slowing down their browsing. Also, some products use more CPU than others while browsing, launching apps, etc. I know a guy in real life whose laptop's battery life increased after he switched from Kaspersky Free to Bitdefender Free (Later to MD for a different reason). Why? Because all he does on his laptop is browsing and Kaspersky is more resource intensive in browsing. These are some facts that no test shows but could be an important factor for many.
It's not easy to test the performance impact of AV products for a variety of reasons.
No one really cares about app installation slowdown. An app taking 10 seconds to install with one product while 12 seconds with another doesn't matter because you are not installing new apps every day. Your already installed apps are not updating every day either.
In app launching and web browsing, looks like almost everyone is very fast in this test except Avast, F-Secure and Trend. App launching slow-down is something I have always faced in Trend and for Avast it doesn't happen always but they often slow down even 7zip, Windows Photos which doesn't happen with any other product. F-Secure slows down the launching of unsigned apps after every single signature update. I have said this before and other users verified it.
When people say that Microsoft Defender is fast on their PC, most of them are not wrong because basic day-to-day tasks like app launching, web browsing, downloading are not impacted by it.
People are also not wrong when they say MD is heavy because it surely impacts performance in some scenarios especially if it's a low config PC. I found a relative of mine using a Dual Core PC with 2gb ram running Windows 10 64 bit and MD was making the PC unusable. I had to turn off many things, uninstall pre-installed apps and install Panda Free to make it light.
Based on my experience, I would say the PC mark score in this test somehow is the most accurate representation of their performance impact on most PCs.
ESET, K7, Panda, Norton these top 4 makes sense to me though I have talked with @Trident regarding this and something he told me is definitely correct which is products like ESET, K7, Panda don't monitor as many things like API calls, do journaling etc. related things as the likes of BD, Kaspersky, Norton, Avast. It's easier to be light when you're doing less and relying highly on signature, heuristics, cloud hash checkups. So here I would give Norton bigger credit to be able to keep things light without compromising too much.
So I would say, a certain part of the test matches with my own experience.
But a performance test like this doesn't give the whole picture. It says browsing is very fast with basically every product but many members on the forum said that they can feel Kaspersky slowing down their browsing. Also, some products use more CPU than others while browsing, launching apps, etc. I know a guy in real life whose laptop's battery life increased after he switched from Kaspersky Free to Bitdefender Free (Later to MD for a different reason). Why? Because all he does on his laptop is browsing and Kaspersky is more resource intensive in browsing. These are some facts that no test shows but could be an important factor for many.
It's not easy to test the performance impact of AV products for a variety of reasons.
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,094
agree++ For me MS Defender does not seem anywhere as heavy as its test scores, and as I mentioned above F-Secure is light, lighter than Defender, FS should be center left toward lighter.
- Apr 15, 2019
- 103
You hit the nail on the head. For me, the most important aspect of an antivirus is having a low performance impact since most of them now have good protection level. I care about internet browsing snappiness the most that's why I try to avoid AVs which have an HTTP Scanner. For example ESET NOD32 is one of the lightest in terms of performance but I can feel my internet browsing snapiness go down when I use it and unlike Avast where you can do a custom install and deselect the Web shield, you cannot do that with NOD32 and if you disable HTTP scanning you get a nice ember ESET icon like something is seriously wrong. I even added Chrome/Firefox to the web exclusions but that didn't help.
Last edited:
- Apr 13, 2014
- 858
- Apr 17, 2021
- 448
I agree with AV-Comparatives regarding F-Secure’s performance. F-Secure will do a cloud analysis when new executable files arrive on a PC. When the internet connection is not so fast, noticeable slowdown will be observed.
Hi I see that f-secure under av-comparatives is awful with performance ,is anyone seeing good performance with this av? Thks
- May 29, 2018
- 2,606
F secure is one of the lightest antiviruses i have ever used, the tests just dont make sense
Similar threads
