User Feedback Quick Heal Antivirus Pro v18.00 - A review by Der.Reisende

Software
Quick Heal Antivirus Pro v18.00
Installation
5.00 star(s)
Installation Feedback
Very fast and hassle free installation.
Note that all but the English installer are very old, maybe there is no current version available. I chose the English version, it is up to date.
https://www.quickheal.com/download-free-antivirus?p=34/
Interface (UI)
5.00 star(s)
Interface Feedback
Tons of features, though not bloated, logical arrangement of functions. Colours are pleasant to the eyes. Modern UI, with neat, big icons. Please refer to the screenshots in the full review.
Usability
5.00 star(s)
Usability Feedback
Very good arragement of functions, easy to understand description, most functions are on / off, some drop-down bars.
Performance and System Impact
5.00 star(s)
Performance and System Impact Feedback
Excellent system performance on my system:

Windows 10 x64 v1903 build 18362.116 (build no. at time of initital review)
8 GB RAM
Intel i5-7200U
Nvidia GeForce 940MX + Intel HD 620
1 TB HDD / 128 GB SSD (C:// is located on SSD)
Boot Time: 4.1 sec.
Performance with SMO TextMaker 2018 Pro open, one Brave Browser Window open, multiple
extensions inside Brave Browser, build 0.64.77, x64, Snipping Tool in use:
RAM: 190.9 MB
CPU: 2,5%

First full scan:
Duration: 5 minutes for a full scan. Impressive!
Resource usage: Total CPU fluctuating between 70% for a few seconds at the start of scan, came down to ~15% when taking screenshots
(most of the CPU consumed by QuickHeal), RAM stable at 147,4 MB for QuickHeal only).
Protection
3.00 star(s)
Protection Feedback
v18.00
There are no statistics available yet.
Rating to be changed as soon there is at least on month of Malware HUB input.

v17.00 was mediocre in terms of protection, refer to the links in the full article regarding the 0day-HUB tests.

Signatures are still below average. Much better dynamic protection (Advanced DNAScan, opt-in Anti-Keylogger, Web Security scans traffic, all new Total Ransomware Protection w/ secure folders, 2-way-firewall, 1-way-firewall by default, Trusted EMail Clients Protection)
Pros
  1. Lots of great features
  2. Low impact on system resources
  3. Lightning fast scans
  4. Highly configurable
  5. Easy to use
  6. Simple and non-intrusive
  7. Ransomware protection
  8. Strong and reliable protection
  9. Blocks even brand new malware
  10. Well designed, clear interface
  11. Multiple layers of protection
Cons
  1. Antivirus capabilities are average at best
  2. Mixed results from independent testing labs
  3. Can be complex in some situations
Software installed on computer
Less than 30 days
Computer specs
Windows 10 x64 v1903 build 18362.116 (build no. at time of initital review)
8 GB RAM
Intel i5-7200U
Nvidia GeForce 940MX + Intel HD 620
1 TB HDD / 128 GB SSD (C:// is located on SSD)
Overall Rating
3.00 star(s)
Disclaimer
  1. Any views or opinions expressed are that of the member giving the information and may be subjective.
    This software may behave differently on your device.

    We encourage you to compare these opinions with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use.
    Before buying a product 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.

Der.Reisende

Level 44
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Dec 27, 2014
3,390
Might be the cost pulled their socks OFF/still i think QH uses Cloud (BD-Nimbus) for web protection
Another reason might be (SEQRITE seems to have employed a new ML engine , i read they already implemented in enterprise products)
so future idea might be adding the same engine to home products ;)
Yes, i also was very curious when i read about GoDeep ML Engine!
Hope it finds it‘s way in at least TS soon!

Agree, could really be using BD cloud, many pages blocked by webshield were also blocked by BD extension in Brave (Chrome fork, but some also only by QH).
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,627
can you compare QuickHeal and Wisevector?
I think Wisevector is very good besides its too simple coding. Most malwares are detected by its ML engine, the rest might be detected on execution
I think it's even lighter than other AVs

you can check Harlan's test in WV thread. Almost all are detected on context scan
 
Last edited:

Der.Reisende

Level 44
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Dec 27, 2014
3,390
Why not contact their support and get an official answer?
3DF29334-8863-407E-A501-469EFC2D563C.jpeg