AV-Comparatives Performance Test Oct 2026

[Spartan]

Chart: Comparison
Article: Performance Test September 2026

 

[Bot]

Chart: Comparison Article: Performance Test September 2026

Hi Spartan, thanks for posting this. The test period was September, with the results published on 20 October, so the date difference in the title/chart is expected.

The leading group in the AV-Comparatives results is:

• McAfee: 3.1 impact score
• K7: 3.2
• Kaspersky: 3.3
• Norton: 4.9
• Avast: 5.2
• AVG: 5.3

Lower is better. I would treat the first three as a top cluster rather than attach much significance to a 0.1-point difference. G DATA also has a notably good result at 8.3, while Fortect and TotalAV exceed 30; Total Defense and Sophos finish at 37.0 and 39.8 respectively.

Microsoft Defender is more nuanced than its 11th-place position suggests: it scored 96.5 in Procyon, but 80 in AV-C’s task-based tests, producing a 13.5 impact score. That illustrates why the component results matter—the final score combines categorised file/application tests with the Procyon Office benchmark. It is not a percentage slowdown.

The testing used Windows 11 on a high-end Core i7 system with 16 GB RAM and SSD storage, default product settings and cloud connectivity. It is a useful comparative snapshot, but differences near the top may be barely noticeable on such hardware, while another workload or a lower-end PC could behave differently.

Most importantly, this chart measures performance impact, not protection or false positives. I would use protection and usability results first, then use this performance test as a tiebreaker. A wonderfully light antivirus that misses the problem is merely efficient at the wrong job.

Sources

• Antivirus Performance Test September 2026 | AV-Comparatives

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

What happened here? Is ESET heavier than Bitdefender? xddd

 

[AFEH]

What happened here? Is ESET heavier than Bitdefender? xddd

Definitions overfeeding.

 

[k1esa]

Bitdefender is faster than ESET. What are they smoking?

 

[Morro]

What happened here? Is ESET heavier than Bitdefender? xddd

I assure you that ESET is many... many times lighter than BitDefender ever was when I used it. But mileage can differ from computer to computer. (Or person.)

 

[Khushal]

Also K7 is light but not that light to be on second best on this list!

 

[k1esa]

I assure you that ESET is many... many times lighter than BitDefender ever was when I used it. But mileage can differ from somputer to computer. (Or person.)

Yeap. On my computer, ESET runs faster than Kaspersky, while using Bitdefender results in a noticeably heavier load on the system.

 

[Antimalware18]

Some suprising results for sure

currently using AVG so I'm liking that score

I assure you that ESET is many... many times lighter than BitDefender ever was when I used it. But mileage can differ from somputer to computer. (Or person.)

Also this, I have used both ESET and BD Free, and even though BD Free was lighter on my system weeks after installing, ESET has always been multiple times lighter.

 

[Spartan]

I switched to K7 AntiVirus Premium after looking at these tests.

I do have a 3 year license for McAfee Antivirus but the problem with it is:
1- You cannot exclude an entire folder, you have to exclude one file at a time
2- Everytime a file/program is updated, McAfee removes it from the exclusions list then you have to do whitelist it again

I also have AVG Internet Security and Avast Premium Security licenses but my issue with them is even though I only keep the file shield installed with nothing else, not even the behavior blocker, oftentimes when I try to update an app, AVG/Avast warns me that this may be a risk and I have to wait for 60 seconds till it completes an indepth analysis; by that time, the updater fails since the file(s) it needs to update were locked so I have to disable AVG/Avast then do the update. I am talking about legit/licensed apps.

 

[Ice Dream']

out of all
these scores yet reminds us, this us being who is interested in getting a suite, a security suite... that Dr.Web refused their tests for this sole reason, or at least for the 90% of their authority in question, was why
i think these tests do not say what components are being tested, the problem they might cause because of a app bug or simply vibe-coded security fixes for vpn's, anti-exploit or UI, or human error, both talk to one another
and this is a good hint, because look at Panda, while a disgrace ever since 2016, they scored higher than most. Let's us remind what is Panda?

cloud based antivirus with the intention of being serious but extremely unnoticeable in the use of system that it runs on, it has fairly semi-good psihing scores, and where it sits better is on the AV detection. It highlights a lot of false positives while missing the real thing for 80% of the time when we talk basic viruses and the 20, is off their radar. It can happen because of cloud delay input, server authentification issues, even more if you're further from Spain. Even though they were bought by WatchGuard it means f4ck all.
You'll never get the same positivity like you'd with their enterprise suites(Panda Adaptive) and such.

so again, all these are a basic blind catch that tells us that history speaks for itself, not these tests. Their ok for their scope but not for the endgoal

 

[Ice Dream']

I run Dr.Web and is a lot easier on the system than Kaspersky or the McAfee adware
yet you search this on the web this, you get a lot of boo boo because... yeah

 

[Sorrento]

At least here this year on this reasonably fast PC ESET is lighter than BD which I also tried a couple of months ago, (though I prefer ESET anyway) from my remembrance that was the case for some time by the same testers, not sure what's happened? McAfee was always light too, though on this PC I don't feel there is much difference from ESET, not that I notice anyway ?


Back in April