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.

Performance is heavily dependent on system configuration and health some security software will have conflicts with software and even hardware drives. At best a test like this can be seem as a guideline that is true in the test configuration but may not be true in your particular set up.
 
  • Like
  • Applause
  • +Reputation
Reactions: brambedkar59, fabiobr, roger_m and 6 others
Another thing which is probably not much important is the time an AV takes to remove malwares. Removing malware is surely not just about deleting the samples but I'm mainly talking about malwares that you haven't even executed. AVs like Windows Defender, Bitdefender is very slow at deleting malwares, Avira is slow as well with their silly Luke Filewalker thing. Norton is on the slower side with pretty high CPU usage, Kaspersky is fine, ESET, Emsisoft, WiseVector is very fast. Forgot about AVG and Avast.
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
Reactions: brambedkar59, roger_m, amico81 and 7 others
jackuars said:
Way lighter than Kaspersky, I can't run Kaspersky without system hang once in a while on one of my 1GB RAM laptop. The specifications matters a lot for performance tests.
Click to expand...

1GB RAM is not much.

And you should also read Kaspersky's system requirements. It says 1 GB of free RAM for 32-bit operating systems and 2 GB of free RAM for 64-bit operating systems.
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
  • Applause
Reactions: Der.Reisende, Nevi, virusesmaximum and 7 others
jackuars said:
Way lighter than Kaspersky, I can't run Kaspersky without system hang once in a while on one of my 1GB RAM laptop. The specifications matters a lot for performance tests.
Click to expand...

We must remember, not everyone lives in places with wealth and low cost equipment. In the USA, you can go pick up a nice refurbished elitebook notebook with quite a lot of power for around a hundred bucks. But with 1GB of TOTAL ram, you really can't be running any antivirus in real-time and may be wise to choose an on-demand scanner only or an SRP/Anti-Exe product rather than a suite.
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
  • Wow
Reactions: Divine_Barakah, Der.Reisende, Nevi and 9 others
FrFc1908 said:
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.



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! :) ;)


Kaspersky less effective protection wise than bitdefender? You must be Joking right??
Click to expand...
Bitdefender better than kaspersky
There are many ransomware that Kaspersky could not detect ex. files .toes
and other
 
  • HaHa
Reactions: virusesmaximum
Thales said:
I've never seen any ransomware :D Probably I'm not stupid as average Joe.
Click to expand...
look hhhh
55555.png
 

Attachments

  • 55555.png
    55555.png
    41.8 KB · Views: 165
  • HaHa
  • Like
Reactions: virusesmaximum, roger_m, bribon77 and 3 others
harlan4096 said:
1GB of RAM? :sick: :eek: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Technically, you would not notice a difference on "a normal" PC, so they used a template for the low spec devices, where the question matters.
My mom's laptop, used just for browsing, is AMD quad core with 4GB, yet any AV drags it down noticeably, so I use none there, it is a bit faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Divine_Barakah, brambedkar59 and harlan4096
EndangeredPootis said:
Norton uses 80 megabytes when idle, is that more than bitdefenders 400 megabytes?
Click to expand...
Did you include all processes/services, 80MB seems unreal? Besides, those tests fail to correlate CPU/HDD/RAM usage. They all matter.
I would pick AV, that uses more RAM over AV, that uses CPU/HDD, any time. RAM is there to be used, CPU time-I/O operations, not so much.
Thales said:
I've never seen any ransomware :D Probably I'm not stupid as average Joe.
Click to expand...
I missed being infected so much, that I did it on purpose, just to see, what happens (wannacry). I had to reinstall and re-download steam games, that was all, but I have learnt in the process, so I bet, that my steam games would be untouched now, because of permission settings. :)
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
Reactions: brambedkar59, Venustus, roger_m and 7 others
EndangeredPootis said:
Norton uses 80 megabytes when idle, is that more than bitdefenders 400 megabytes?
Click to expand...

The use of RAM does not have a direct correlation with the impact of antivirus on the system, not to mention that most manufacturers use tricks to hide the actual consumption.

As the user @TairikuOkami mentioned, there are other far more relevant criteria for measuring impact on performance than Task Manager's memory usage.
 
  • Like
  • +Reputation
Reactions: plat, brambedkar59, fabiobr and 9 others
Take anyone saying an AV is light or heavy with some suspicion, of course this is dependent on ram, software configurations etc. And I just betcha that a lot of posters who say an AV is heavy already have a predisposition and would say the AV is heavy based on their dislike or other chatter that they have read somewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool and mlnevese

You may also like...