AV-Comparatives Performance Test October 2019

[[correlate]]

MRG Effitas 2019: Enterprise Antivirus Testing for Windows 10 and 7
The MRG Effitas Laboratory conducts 360 Dynamic Assessment Testing during 2019. Corporate antiviruses on the Windows 10 and Windows 7 platforms are tested under conditions close to real with a full range of threats.

https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/MRG_Effitas_2019Q1_360.pdf
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MRG_Effitas_2019Q2_360.pdf
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MRG_Effitas_2019Q3_360.pdf
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/MRG_Effitas_2019Q4_360.pdf

 

[Andy Ful]

https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/MRG_Effitas_2019Q1_360.pdf
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MRG_Effitas_2019Q2_360.pdf
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MRG_Effitas_2019Q3_360.pdf
https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/MRG_Effitas_2019Q4_360.pdf

In the last test, the Windows Defender protection is extended via ATP including ASR rules. So, it is not the default Defender (like in previous tests) but rather configuration similar to the MAX Protection Level in ConfigureDefender.
That is the right move, because other AVs are business versions:

• Avast Business Antivirus • Avira Antivirus Pro • Bitdefender Endpoint Security • CrowdStrike Falcon Protect • ESET Endpoint Security • F-Secure Computer Protection Premium • Kaspersky Small Office Security • McAfee Endpoint Security • Microsoft Windows Defender • Sophos Intercept X • Symantec Endpoint Protection Cloud • Trend Micro Worry-Free Business Security

 

[[correlate]]

In the last test, the Windows Defender protection is extended via ATP including ASR rules. So, it is not the default Defender (like in previous tests) but rather configuration similar to the MAX Protection Level in ConfigureDefender.
That is the right move, because other AVs are business versions:

• Avast Business Antivirus • Avira Antivirus Pro • Bitdefender Endpoint Security • CrowdStrike Falcon Protect • ESET Endpoint Security • F-Secure Computer Protection Premium • Kaspersky Small Office Security • McAfee Endpoint Security • Microsoft Windows Defender • Sophos Intercept X • Symantec Endpoint Protection Cloud • Trend Micro Worry-Free Business Security

Andy Ful you are looking for the last detail and you are very familiar with the details of the tests
Something wonderful .

 

[Andy Ful]

Andy Ful you are looking for the last detail and you are very familiar with the details of the tests
Something wonderful .

I was just curious why WD performed well in the Exploit/Fileless test.

 

[SeriousHoax]

I was just curious why WD performed well in the Exploit/Fileless test.

I was curious how WD performed so well in PUP test since PUP protection is not enabled by default. Got my answer from you

 

[RejZoR]

Microsoft predictably last. Their scan engine speed is atrocious. If you see massive lags and pauses and long times for icons of apps to even show up on high end system with tons of RAM and very fast SSD all powered with CPu that has 12 threads and runs at high clock, you know something is seriously wrong. And it has been this way for years. It improved tiny bit, but it's still by far the worst I've seen in any antivirus. And I was just shocked when "tests" were released where Windows Defender had amazing performance results. It just didn't compute and never will unless they fix this idiocy.

 

[lrandomguyl]

Microsoft predictably last. Their scan engine speed is atrocious. If you see massive lags and pauses and long times for icons of apps to even show up on high end system with tons of RAM and very fast SSD all powered with CPu that has 12 threads and runs at high clock, you know something is seriously wrong. And it has been this way for years. It improved tiny bit, but it's still by far the worst I've seen in any antivirus. And I was just shocked when "tests" were released where Windows Defender had amazing performance results. It just didn't compute and never will unless they fix this idiocy.

Really dont know if you life in another universe. I got 32gb ram, latest i7 and nvme ssd. All opens instantly. No slowdown at all. Fun fact. Windows defener is the only av that dosnt give me fps drops at all, not 1 fps while every other one i tested had a impact on fps and games just didnt feel as smooth as with windows defender. i got a 144Hz laptop i noticed even the slightest different.I tested Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Emsisoft and Eset and with every single one of them and everyone gives you - fps. With win defender not at all. Every single game runs perfect and with the highest fps possible. Im at the point where i say win defender is for many average persons by far the fastest av. Keep in mind they dont open a location with 2341232 exe's in it. Atleast on my system windows defender is by far the fastest one and a real keeper.

 

[Andy Ful]

WD has amazing performance results for most of daily activities:
Bootup time, application startup time (already installed), CPU usage / Memory usage / Physical disk usage / Network usage (on idle), web browsing, document viewing/editing, gaming, playing/ watching media.

WD has below average performance for file management (copying/moving many files), making archives/backups of many files, opening folders with many executables (first time after reboot), installing/uninstalling complex applications, full scans. These activities are not performed frequently, so they are not so important for many users. For example, making a full scan is required only after being infected.

 

[RejZoR]

Really dont know if you life in another universe. I got 32gb ram, latest i7 and nvme ssd. All opens instantly. No slowdown at all. Fun fact. Windows defener is the only av that dosnt give me fps drops at all, not 1 fps while every other one i tested had a impact on fps and games just didnt feel as smooth as with windows defender. i got a 144Hz laptop i noticed even the slightest different.I tested Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Emsisoft and Eset and with every single one of them and everyone gives you - fps. With win defender not at all. Every single game runs perfect and with the highest fps possible. Im at the point where i say win defender is for many average persons by far the fastest av. Keep in mind they dont open a location with 2341232 exe's in it. Atleast on my system windows defender is by far the fastest one and a real keeper.

No antivirus affects framerate. Ever. Whoever says it does is full of BS. It does affect file access and thus load times. And WD isn't fast. And it doesn't have to be 2443363463 EXE's. It just has to be 1 larger, like installer and WD chokes on it entirely, where literally all others just breze throughthem with ease. It's just not fast at all. Oh and I have similar system...

 

[outlawxtorn]

@ForgottenSeer 58943 What do you think? Do av's affect fps in games?

 

[SeriousHoax]

Really dont know if you life in another universe. I got 32gb ram, latest i7 and nvme ssd. All opens instantly. No slowdown at all. Fun fact. Windows defener is the only av that dosnt give me fps drops at all, not 1 fps while every other one i tested had a impact on fps and games just didnt feel as smooth as with windows defender. i got a 144Hz laptop i noticed even the slightest different.I tested Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Emsisoft and Eset and with every single one of them and everyone gives you - fps. With win defender not at all. Every single game runs perfect and with the highest fps possible. Im at the point where i say win defender is for many average persons by far the fastest av. Keep in mind they dont open a location with 2341232 exe's in it. Atleast on my system windows defender is by far the fastest one and a real keeper.

Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Emsisoft and Eset affects fps but WD doesn't, this is complete nonsense. None of these AVs affetcs fps and like RejZoR said only loading time is affected.

 

[Andy Ful]

No antivirus affects framerate.

It is not true. When the AV is doing something while gaming (signature update, engine update, scheduled scan, some other scheduled tasks like updating applications, etc.), then the game does not have access to the full CPU resources. This can have an impact on the framerates (depending on the game settings and CPU strength).

 

[RejZoR]

It is not true. When the AV is doing something while gaming (signature update, engine update, scheduled scan, some other scheduled tasks like updating applications, etc.), then the game does not have access to the full CPU resources. This can have an impact on the framerates (depending on the game settings and CPU strength).

If any antivirus process of such sort affects framerate you already have issues with system being weak. I can have antivirus doing a full system scan with normal priority and I probably wouldn't even notice any difference...

 

[Andy Ful]

If any antivirus process of such sort affects framerate you already have issues with system being weak. I can have antivirus doing a full system scan with normal priority and I probably wouldn't even notice any difference...

Yes, this usually happens when the user has weak hardware. But equally, it can happen with many games on ultra settings on standard (or stronger) computers. For example, you will get about 70 Fps when playing Far Cry : New Dawn (1920x180, i7-9750H, GTX 1660 Ti, 16 GB RAM). But, how many users have such computers?

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

@ForgottenSeer 58943 What do you think? Do av's affect fps in games?

Depending on situation, AV's can impact FPS but it is mostly constrained to file I/O and other things causing the hitching. There is no magical thing the AV is doing in ram or CPU cycles that would slow a game unless the system is super weak. For me, even on powerful systems, WD always feels like a pig. Even when compared to a far superior product like GData, WD feels like a massive pig.

PS: 32GB of Ram is useless for gaming, since almost all games will utilize 8GB or less and only 2 Cores, with limited thread use. Unless you run VM's, there really isn't any need at all to have more than 16GB of RAM on a gaming rig. That money would be better spent on FAST ram, faster GPU, maybe a higher clock CPU.

 

[Andy Ful]

...
WD always feels like a pig. Even when compared to a far superior product like GData, WD feels like a massive pig.
...

Now we know that you dislike WD and we know your feelings about WD.
Is the dog a pig because of having a pig's tail?
As it was pointed out many times, WD is fast/light in many areas and slow in some areas. I tried to describe this in my previous post:
https://malwaretips.com/threads/performance-test-october-2019.96402/post-858149
There are many performance tests that show it and there is no contradiction between different tests because they usually test different performance areas.

 

[polishpatriot]

There are many performance tests that show it and there is no contradiction between different tests because they usually test different performance areas.

The problem with WD is that the Microsoft Windows Defender Indian and Eastern Euro subcontractors have not implemented cache (not that Microsoft will let them anyway).

Otherwise, if you operate your system in such a manner that cache is of little advantage, then WD works just as well as the leaders in performance.

 

[Andy Ful]

The problem with WD is that the Microsoft Windows Defender Indian and Eastern Euro subcontractors have not implemented cache (not that Microsoft will let them anyway).

Otherwise, if you operate your system in such a manner that cache is of little advantage, then WD works just as well as the leaders in performance.

I think that most people on MT have WD with caching. The WD cache is cleared after reboot. So still, there will be a visible impact when copying many files, opening folders with many executables (first time after starting the Windows), etc. This impact can be annoying for people who frequently do file management (as you already noticed). Of course, one can simply disable temporarily real-time protection for such tasks or change the AV.
There is no need to suffer if one does not like WD.

 

[polishpatriot]

I think that most people on MT have WD with caching. The WD cache is cleared after reboot. So still, there will be a visible impact when copying many files, opening folders with many executables (first time after starting the Windows), etc. This impact can be annoying for people who frequently do file management (as you already noticed). Of course, one can simply disable temporarily real-time protection for such tasks or change the AV.
There is no need to suffer if one does not like WD.

If one studies WD RAM use, one realizes that it is not optimized as well as its "competitors." It is one thing that Microsoft has not sorted out completely.

 

[Andy Ful]

If one studies WD RAM use, one realizes that it is not optimized as well as its "competitors." It is one thing that Microsoft has not sorted out completely.

Could you give us more information about it?