AV-Comparatives Performance Test October 2019

Disclaimer
  1. This test shows how an antivirus behaves with certain threats, in a specific environment and under certain conditions.
    We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use.
    Before buying an antivirus you should consider factors such as price, ease of use, compatibility, and support. Installing a free trial version allows an antivirus to be tested in everyday use before purchase.

amico81

Level 21
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jan 10, 2017
1,061
Source : Performance Test October 2019 | AV-Comparatives

avc.PNG
 

Andy Ful

From Hard_Configurator Tools
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Developer
Well-known
Dec 23, 2014
8,119
The results of this test, highly depend on the weights of tested categories:
file copying, archiving/unarchiving, installing/uninstalling applications, launching applications, downloading files. Furthermore, the testing procedure does not include two important factors : gaming and starting/shutting down the system.
The results of this test will be welcome for many MalwareTips members who frequently:
  1. install/uninstall applications,
  2. create archives or backups,
  3. copy many files.
But, for the average users, these activities are uncommon and unimportant as compared to launching applications, web browsing, downloading files or starting/shutting down the system.

By looking at the results of Trend Micro it is evident that the average user will feel it as a slow AV and Windows Defender as much faster (comparable to Avast, AVG, and Eset). Why? Trend Micro has the worst performance for launching applications, which is the most common user activity and Microsoft has the stellar performance in common activities like launching applications, web browsing, downloading files or starting/shutting down the system.

This test strongly suggests that independently of the chosen methodology, there are some generally fast AVs like: Kaspersky, Avira, and McAfee.
I use WD for a few years and in my opinion, it has an average performance (fast in common activities and below average when managing the system).
(y)
 

Andy Ful

From Hard_Configurator Tools
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Developer
Well-known
Dec 23, 2014
8,119
Microsoft feels like an absolute pig each time I reset a machine. I cannot wait to group policy that nonsense off my systems.
The restart depends mostly on the installed software and system health. In many performance tests, WD has very good restart times. (y)
 
Last edited:

roger_m

Level 41
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Dec 4, 2014
3,029
As usual the results should only be used as a very rough indication of performance. In my usage, I've found Tencent and Panda to be extremely light, on any system I install them on, even really old systems with low end CPUs. Unlike some antiviruses that are light the majority of the time, but sometimes you see spikes in CPU, which cause noticeable slowdowns, I find Tencent and Panda to always be extremely light. For me at least, they are much lighter than Kaspersky, Avast and Avira, which all scored better.

While it's not as light as Tencent or Panda, I've found Symantec to also be lighter than Kaspersky, Avast and Avira.

As always, the only true way to test performance, is to install a product on your own system and see how it performs. It's interesting that some antiviruses I've tested sometimes can be very light for days, and then for no apparent reason, have brief periods of high CPU use, after which they are light again.
 

F 4 E

Level 3
Verified
Jan 27, 2019
103
Look at the PCMark score, which is more important for the general overall performance of your PC, especially for heavy application use and gaming. F-Secure outperformed all of them with the least impact on the overall on raw PC performance.

I'm with ForgottenSeer 58943. I've tried most AVs and have finally settled on F-Secure. Easy to set up and runs very well on my 2 machines.
 

jackuars

Level 27
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jul 2, 2014
1,688
The tests were performed on a machine with an Intel Core i7-8550U CPU, 8GB of RAM and SSD hard disks. We consider this machine configuration as “high-end”.

I would like to see Performance test being done on a low end or mid end system. That's where these statistics matter the most.
 
Last edited:

FrFc1908

Level 20
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jul 28, 2016
950
Bitdefender lighter than microsoft.......no way!!! Bitdefender 2020 is buggy ( what else is new ) and a known offender to trash systems, putting them to a crawl.....ilde state between 400-500 mb ram ussage.they are right about eset through very light on the system , slightly lighter than kaspersky.

Microsoft feels like an absolute pig each time I reset a machine. I cannot wait to group policy that nonsense off my systems.

Of does feel light on my system , but scanning speed is riddicoulisly slow, as is the transfer rate of copying files and folders...that's why it is the first thing that gets nuked from my system!! Btw Nice beard you have ForgottenSeer 58943! I never would have guessed you looked like that in real life! :) ;)

ESET and McAfee better Performance
Bitdefender Better Protection but Heavy
Kaspersky is middle Performance and protection
Kaspersky less effective protection wise than bitdefender? You must be Joking right??
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top