Last edited:
Performance Test - October 2025
- Thread starter Spartan
- Start date
I don't understand how Kaspersky is number 1, when I install it on my super fast laptop, I can feel the lag when browsing folders that contain setup EXE files as it scans them every single time with no smart whitelisting feature for files that didn't change like ESET.
While I was using K free; it did not impact my PC negatively, except during browsing with encrypted connections scan enabled.
I am using a 13 years old PC with 3rd gen core-i5 and 8 GB RAM; I cannot tell if there is an obvious difference between K up to MD (only B and Avira were heavy), so with a better rig, I doubt it will make much difference.
Last edited:
Maybe because you're used to using ESET, but compared to other antivirus programs, Kaspersky is very resource-light based on my experience.
Even though it's feature rich with intensive behavioral protection, my sense was that most aspects were remarkably well optimized, too.
This particular test does not make any sense to me. F-Secure, now second slowest? That is not my experience at all. And Bugdefender now right behind Windows Defender? Not a chance, Bugdefender is in a class of its own for slowness. And I find McAfee to be faster than ESET. ESET has been getting slower in my experience.
For me other way around, Eset way faster than McAfee, with me, opening the main Ui took 40 seconds with McAfee.
The test used a high-end machine with an Intel Core i7 CPU, 16GB of RAM, and SSD system drives.
All security products use system resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) because they have processes constantly running in the background, like real-time protection and on-access components. When you perform a task like copying a file or launching an application, the security software intercepts these operations to check them, which inherently causes a delay.
The goal of the test is to evaluate the relative impact of one product versus another. The differences measured, even if only fractions of a second, are what determine the rating categories of "Very Fast," "Fast," "Mediocre," and "Slow".
The software tries to optimize by skipping re-scanning files that haven't changed, a process called fingerprinting. However, some products are simply better at minimizing their load during these checks. The overall results even account for the initial, slower "first run" of certain activities.
The report itself includes a disclaimer, noting that while the data gives an indication, too many additional factors can play a part. Users are encouraged to try the software on their own system to check performance, acknowledging that factors like software conflicts and user preferences can lead to varying results.
All security products use system resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) because they have processes constantly running in the background, like real-time protection and on-access components. When you perform a task like copying a file or launching an application, the security software intercepts these operations to check them, which inherently causes a delay.
The goal of the test is to evaluate the relative impact of one product versus another. The differences measured, even if only fractions of a second, are what determine the rating categories of "Very Fast," "Fast," "Mediocre," and "Slow".
The software tries to optimize by skipping re-scanning files that haven't changed, a process called fingerprinting. However, some products are simply better at minimizing their load during these checks. The overall results even account for the initial, slower "first run" of certain activities.
The report itself includes a disclaimer, noting that while the data gives an indication, too many additional factors can play a part. Users are encouraged to try the software on their own system to check performance, acknowledging that factors like software conflicts and user preferences can lead to varying results.
For me, McAfee is the fastest AV I have used. ESET is not much slower, but I can tell the difference. And with Bitdefender opening programs takes at least 5 seconds while every non-Bitdefender powered AV, my programs open almost instantly.
I'm not really getting this test honestly. I've recently run VIPRE, McAfee, and Trend Micro and found that the heaviest of the bunch was Trend. Opening task manager had a noticeable delay on my high-end system compared to the others. According to AV-Comparatives, it's supposed to be just as light as McAfee.
In my experience, Trend is almost as light as McAfee. You might have to reinstall because I don't see any reason for it to lag the system unless it was doing a scan or something like that.
What specs do you have and maybe you got too many startup items?
K7 & ESET is lowest impact in my case
I tested those two and I agree with you. But the Dome is the lightest for me.
Core Ultra 7 265K
RX 6700XT
32gb DDR5 6000 CL30
Recent Windows install. Only things that run at startup are Discord and Steam. Trend wasn't ungodly slow or anything, but I just felt that its system impact was greater than the other two I tried. Had it for about a week. Between that and its poor detection rate (in my own testing in a VM), I decided to look elsewhere.
Right, so after seeing the results of Kaspersky being the lightest this time, I decided to install the free version in a VM.
The app is just like most of what the AVs have become: a full-fledged suite of bloatware. VPN, Browser extension, Kaspersky Safe Guard, Performance Optimizer, you name it! If you disable the Safe Guard option, you get a warning that something is wrong both in the app and in the online management console. I hate this crap!
The app is just like most of what the AVs have become: a full-fledged suite of bloatware. VPN, Browser extension, Kaspersky Safe Guard, Performance Optimizer, you name it! If you disable the Safe Guard option, you get a warning that something is wrong both in the app and in the online management console. I hate this crap!
Just get Kaspersky Standard, it's the basic Kaspersky license that is just the AV for the most part with very little extras. You can disable automatic scans from the "performance cleaners".
I agree with you. Kaspersky may require few resources, but that doesn't mean it won't perform certain operations. Unfortunately, the file manager opens slowly every time you first open it. Call of Duty works less smoothly. Web browsing is painfully slow compared to McAfee. And others who have this product say the same thing. Plus, Kaspersky's home products have moved into the bloatware category. It's full of unnecessary stuff that is irrelevant to me in terms of protection. For me, a simple antivirus would be enough without all the extra features. It should include System Watcher and other basic functions such as email protection, web protection, etc. And that's about it. I don't need a firewall either. The Windows firewall is perfectly fine for me. I know there is a free version of Kaspersky AV, but it is not available in my country, etc. Kaspersky is not an easy product, even though it consumes few resources. The Russians don't want to develop it in this direction. Despite all the bloatware, it should be a lightweight product. Yet it remains my favorite product to this day. Since I started using McAfee, everything is much faster.
ESET is lightweight on my 3rd Generation i3 processor with DDR3 RAM and K. is fairly lightweight. Well few months ago I rename an antivirus from Bitdefender to BugDefender and now other members do the same.
You may also like...
-
-
-
Business Security Test 2025 (August – November)- Started by Minimalist
- Replies: 7
-
Consumer Real-World Protection Test July-October 2025
- Started by Minimalist
- Replies: 14
-
AV-Comparatives Performance Test April 2025
- Started by Spartan
- Replies: 17
