Bitdefender or Kaspersky in my humble opinion
I think you disagree merely with the techniques used in prevention, not really on "prevention".I'll have to disagree with the statement "Detection is important but prevention is better.", Prevention alone does sometimes work, but it has a major drawbacks for some reasons, first it won't stop social engineering or a targeted attack, it also fails to address anything that goes beyond it, and this is where most attacks begin, prevention will not also stop most network attacks, as what has been happening lately with the different ransomeware, for example the WannaCry's used exploit was already known before the attack has taken place, still, many companies and organization got infected by it.
IMO, one can't just depend only "prevention" or stuff like "anti-exe", prevention alone as said is never enough alone, a balance of both detection and prevention is the ideal way, while still both will usually disappoint if you're being highly targeted, which in any case you're just doomed.
I voted Kaspersky.Small explanation about Emsisoft Anti-malware signature dual-engines mechanism (Bit Defender + proprietary/homemade) :
We continuously check which threats are already detected by Bitdefender and disable all signatures in our own engine that were created to detect the same threats. As a result you of course will see 99% "(B)" detections when scanning large malware archives. That is because we focus on the tiny delta on top of Bitdefender (which does a quite good job).
Our own signatures mostly focus on brand new malwares and PUPs. Hours later Bitdefender then usually publishes the same signatures so we can disable ours again.
Also our Anti-Malware Network (Cloud) will complement our engines and the Web Filter will prevent you to access malicious websites.
Some days ago