Software Review Ranking EVERY Antivirus in 300 Seconds (WORST to BEST)

Reviews reflect the reviewer's setup and methods. Check the evidence and limitations.
Thread details
Content created by
Siliconier
Zero Knowledge said:
Both companies are dead. This is not 2010 anymore. Both companies also killed great software after buying it. It remains a mystery why they destroyed great IP.
Click to expand...
Emsisoft was acquired recently and they have not released any updates for months.
Webroot is much alive. I did submit false negatives and they got detected in less than 4 hours. Support is responsive. As for the community, it was moved to Open Text (the company that acquired Webroot).

The product is regularly receiving updates and you can chech the release notes. One of the things that I like the most is the fact they did not touch the UI and I hope it stays this way forever.
 
Zero Knowledge said:
Yeah but who uses them? Your grandma who got Webroot for $2 in the bargain bin @ Walmart. The minute Emsisoft reneged on license discounts was the death.
Click to expand...
I got Webroot for two years/3 devices for $3 LOL. I am satisfied and happy.

As for Emsisoft, I feel sorry for them. I really loved their product. After some catastrophic decisions to enter the business sector and after killing their forums, everything started to decline. I have contacted their support a month ago and they offered me a 50% discount (student discount) but I passed on it as I have been closely monitoring their updates which does not promote confidence.
 
Zero Knowledge said:
Both companies are dead. This is not 2010 anymore. Both companies also killed great software after buying it. It remains a mystery why they destroyed great IP.
Click to expand...
What is "great IP" Improved Pervx maybe?

Yes it is sad when standards start to slide after one of these takeovers.

Was nearly going to give Emsisoft a go after I accidentally installed it after running EEK a few weeks ago but no got rid of it.

Regards Eck:)
 
Ice Dream' said:
bitdefender is far more capable than kaspersky or any av
Click to expand...

As with @stonjean633 I'm not sure where you came up with that? What about stability, amount of processes used etc, where if a company is going to fix one thing and break another, would be Bitdefender. Unless you use the Free version, with less modules to possibly glitch out?

There are better options, IMO in that regard, like Kaspersky, Eset, Avast/Avg. I personally would use F-Secure (which I have) above BD for what I was doing, am doing, and not doing online, no matter what you may think of them. I don't need an over engineered, over zealous AV on my devices :)

But, to each their own :)
 
I had a license for BD ever since I know. I use it on my i7-7820HK gaming laptop. It doesn't interfere with my device at all. I use the Internet Security, I don't use the VPN or any of their privacy tools.
I have 64GB ram and I get an usage of max 200MB from BD, unless it managed to detect a ransomware, and in that case as with my tests, it rises just a bit towards one point five
uh.. BD runs on the Zero-Trust philosophy, meaning anything in your device could represent a possible threat. BD were the first in the world to implement the ML module. I am Romanian, I am proud of my country, this post isn't meant as a patrotism act, but Bitdefender left a mark in cybersecurity that will never ever get remade again. Whether you want to have the last word or not, is strictly up to your moral environment capabilities. Speaking of capable things..

now I haven't made this post to show off BD, no, but because many worldwide cybersecurity companies uses it, its a sole reason why. Their detection was based by a huge R&D team, and still is, but now they can act even better, because BD sold their engine to over 200 AV's out there. ;)

kaspsersky is still much fine but it's UI is dated and their compability is horrible. But while these online dudes who got these av tests websites will tell you their equal, their not.
Bitdefender had a 0.00001% chance of missing a virus, while Kaspersky detects many false positives, a lot.
 
Ice Dream' said:
I had a license for BD ever since I know. I use it on my i7-7820HK gaming laptop. It doesn't interfere with my device at all. I use the Internet Security, I don't use the VPN or any of their privacy tools.
I have 64GB ram and I get an usage of max 200MB from BD, unless it managed to detect a ransomware, and in that case as with my tests, it rises just a bit towards one point five
uh.. BD runs on the Zero-Trust philosophy, meaning anything in your device could represent a possible threat. BD were the first in the world to implement the ML module. I am Romanian, I am proud of my country, this post isn't meant as a patrotism act, but Bitdefender left a mark in cybersecurity that will never ever get remade again. Whether you want to have the last word or not, is strictly up to your moral environment capabilities. Speaking of capable things..

now I haven't made this post to show off BD, no, but because many worldwide cybersecurity companies uses it, its a sole reason why. Their detection was based by a huge R&D team, and still is, but now they can act even better, because BD sold their engine to over 200 AV's out there. ;)

kaspsersky is still much fine but it's UI is dated and their compability is horrible. But while these online dudes who got these av tests websites will tell you their equal, their not.
Bitdefender had a 0.00001% chance of missing a virus, while Kaspersky detects many false positives, a lot.
Click to expand...

With such a glowing endorsement of Bitdefender, and being Romanian, have you ever considered helping out on the forum (maybe you already are)? Alexandru may appreciate your insights and help :) Just a thought :)
 
Ice Dream' said:
I had a license for BD ever since I know. I use it on my i7-7820HK gaming laptop. It doesn't interfere with my device at all. I use the Internet Security, I don't use the VPN or any of their privacy tools.
I have 64GB ram and I get an usage of max 200MB from BD, unless it managed to detect a ransomware, and in that case as with my tests, it rises just a bit towards one point five
uh.. BD runs on the Zero-Trust philosophy, meaning anything in your device could represent a possible threat. BD were the first in the world to implement the ML module. I am Romanian, I am proud of my country, this post isn't meant as a patrotism act, but Bitdefender left a mark in cybersecurity that will never ever get remade again. Whether you want to have the last word or not, is strictly up to your moral environment capabilities. Speaking of capable things..

now I haven't made this post to show off BD, no, but because many worldwide cybersecurity companies uses it, its a sole reason why. Their detection was based by a huge R&D team, and still is, but now they can act even better, because BD sold their engine to over 200 AV's out there. ;)

kaspsersky is still much fine but it's UI is dated and their compability is horrible. But while these online dudes who got these av tests websites will tell you their equal, their not.
Bitdefender had a 0.00001% chance of missing a virus, while Kaspersky detects many false positives, a lot.
Click to expand...
false positives of BD less than Kaspersky or even ESET no f...ing way!!!
 
Ice Dream' said:
I had a license for BD ever since I know. I use it on my i7-7820HK gaming laptop. It doesn't interfere with my device at all. I use the Internet Security, I don't use the VPN or any of their privacy tools.
I have 64GB ram and I get an usage of max 200MB from BD, unless it managed to detect a ransomware, and in that case as with my tests, it rises just a bit towards one point five
uh.. BD runs on the Zero-Trust philosophy, meaning anything in your device could represent a possible threat. BD were the first in the world to implement the ML module. I am Romanian, I am proud of my country, this post isn't meant as a patrotism act, but Bitdefender left a mark in cybersecurity that will never ever get remade again. Whether you want to have the last word or not, is strictly up to your moral environment capabilities. Speaking of capable things..

now I haven't made this post to show off BD, no, but because many worldwide cybersecurity companies uses it, its a sole reason why. Their detection was based by a huge R&D team, and still is, but now they can act even better, because BD sold their engine to over 200 AV's out there. ;)

kaspsersky is still much fine but it's UI is dated and their compability is horrible. But while these online dudes who got these av tests websites will tell you their equal, their not.
Bitdefender had a 0.00001% chance of missing a virus, while Kaspersky detects many false positives, a lot.
Click to expand...
You still got a very capable system. BD's impact is nothing to a system with 64GB RAM.
 
stonjean633 said:
You still got a very capable system. BD's impact is nothing to a system with 64GB RAM.
Click to expand...

well this laptop has a long story
I had a bereavement a few years back and I had a haulage all way from Canada, it's an acer predator gx21
the dude barely used it.. it was sent basically brand new
but yeah its more than capable, i can basically play the division 2 online while having 4 chrome instances with 10 tabs each
 

Recently browsing

Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes

You may also like...

Back
Top