Not open for further replies.


Level 3
Hello my friends
Ok so
I have a Eset Nod32 License (that I won on a giveaway) and it will end on october so plenty of time left
on the other hand i have won a webroot 1 year license and I don't know is webroot really worth it
I like Eset it works quite good on my pc but sometimes i feel some little slowdowns mostly when booting my pc
I know that webroot uses very little recourses but does it offer enough protection for a family shared computer

Paul Lee

Level 10
ESET will be more than enough on most modern-day systems. Webroot is mostly for people who are not as infection prone
Resource usage: Webroot
Real World system impact: Webroot: less than 5 MB ESET less than 100 MB but it's incredibly light for a signature-based antivirus
Level of Protection and Features: ESET

The choice is up to you :)

ESET is ideal if you are infection prone & Webroot is ideal if you casually surf the web ;)


Staff member
Both are excellent security software at protecting your PC, as long as you follow basic online browsing and safety habits.

CPU/RAM/HDD will vary amongst different system configurations, but are optimised for low resource usages, likewise for real-world system impact on performance.

You can compare the features of the different Webroot editions and ESET versions from their respective websites. However, be wary of comparison sites, as they details may not always be true, correct or up to date.

As said before, both are great software for Antivirus protection. ESET uses both traditional and cloud technologies, whereas Webroot is based on Prevx, which uses the cloud technologies.
How Webroot Works?


Level 18
hi, webroot are the most lightest, I think, but Eset gives you a better and solid protection in every way.
Webroot is more "cloud dependent" that ESET because this last one uses different techniques like traditional signatures plus cloud technologies.
Eset is much more polished and reliable and has a great web protection, speaks an happy ESET user:D

make your choice;)


Level 17
You can't compare a cloud based AV like Webroot to an AV that actually has an engine, and good heuristics. ESET is better overall, if you want to save system resources to the max, then webroot isn't a bad pick. But in terms of protection, ESET would be my pick.


We used Webroot on two family computers for awhile. The one I and the kids used did fine. The one my wife used for banking and some purchases had problems with alot of her sites and login pages getting blocked and rather than have to sidestep the protection unistalled it all together. The only other aggravation with it was everything takes a support ticket ,I was disappointed that being a cloud program it couldn't sort out trusted and untrusted on its own without tech. support.


Either one is good if you have reasonable computing habits.

Just a FYI:

In testing malwares Webroot ran into a few issues:
  • Some malwares disabled Windows firewall.
  • Some malwares disabled Windows UAC.
  • It did not reverse screenlock ransomware.
Now before you dump Webroot, that was 1 out of 500 malware samples - the really tough ones from a researcher's malware pack. If I recall correctly, one was a Zeus and the other Sality.

To protect against the first two - simply do not "Run as Administrator" any unknown programs and use Guest (limited) account.

Webroot works fine if used properly - in combination with Windows security measures. It has to be used with discipline.

Screenlock ransomware is a tough one.

No AV is going to provide absolutely 100 % protection; they all have known and undiscovered vulnerabilities.

Either one used correctly, along with reasonable computing habits, will serve you well.

I know a lot of people gets OCD about their security softs - and their performance. That only serves to drive you nuts unless you are an AV nut like some of us here on the security forums.

I used Webroot + MBAM free under typical computing. It did good.

When I test AVs against malwares... something is going to go wrong - with each and every one of them. It is inevitable. Those are extreme testing conditions and bear very little relation to normal use. It's debatable.

In the end, you should trial both... and see which performs best on your specific system and which you like best.

Behold Eck

Level 12
Why not use both as Webroot can be run as a companion AV and as mentioned above is incredibly light on the system ?

I like it, might be the perfect combo ESET sigs and Webroot cloud ?

Regards Eck:)
Last edited:

Deleted member 2913

Does Webroot ask user to allow/block or its completely automatic?


Level 85
Well in terms of lightness to the system then Webroot manage to prove due to components where through cloud with less resource consumption.

But in terms of protection then ESET may give in favor but no harm if add it alongside of WSA as along cloud protection should give a maximum protection cause that's a concept since millions of data were retrieve for checking.


Level 2
It really depends on your habits. If you are someone who for example is just gaming, talking on Skype and visits trusted sites on the internet (Youtube etc) then Webroot is enough, you can pair it with MBAE if you want (just adds 10-15 more MB of RAM), though it's not really needed. If you ain't that careful and do more than that, you should consider ESET. Webroot uses around 5 MB and ESET around 100-120 MB (on my systems at least). Though, ESET is really nice, you shouldn't feel a thing when it comes to slowdowns. It would be wise to let us know of your computer habits so we can assist you further.

Not open for further replies.