Zemana Antimalware Premium vs Malwarebytes 3 Premium /win10/

[ewerton]

what better and why?

 

[Rengar]

ZAM is better. Malwarebytes WAS good but now its not. It may seem to you that Malwarebytes is better because you see a lot of shields( Anti-exploit ,Malicious website protection,etc) but its not.

 

[frogboy]

Zam gets my vote all the way.

 

[Motion]

I do not trust Malwarebytes now, there are others currently better, like ZAM or SecureAplus

 

[jerzy601]

In my opinion Zeman is better, MBAM was some time ago good but now no.
I do not know what they did that is worse.
But this is only my opinion.

 

[Atlas147]

Zemana's detection is much better than malwarebytes but it also has a ton more false positives as well so I would still look at the detections individually to see if they are legit or false positives. Basically if you write your own batch file or anything it'll get picked up by their real time protection if you try to run it

Malwarebytes on the other hand has pretty solid signatures as well, with barely any false positives and an excellent detection rate for PUP/PUA compared to Zemana.

 

[NikolayfromRussia]

I voted for Zemana. It is better than Malwarebytes. One more important thing is that Zemana always makes 1 year giveaways and you can get it for free. I have never seen any giveaways from Malwarebytes. Malwarebytes is too stingy for making giveaways

 

[insanity]

I voted for Zemana, but I don't see a significant benefit in purchasing any of these programs (unless you already got a key for one of them); as far as I know, their realtime protection are not really strong, but I choose Zemana because their detection rate is much better. As I remember, Malwarebytes used to good at detecting PUP and removing infections, but nothing else.

 

[amico81]

i see the strength of malwarebytes to find pups/adware...and zemana for malware

 

[bribon77]

My vote is for Zemana. And I have a license forever of malwarebytes but ...

 

[given]

Zam is on my side

 

[spaceoctopus]

Personally, i would combine the two products. It's a great combo (MB+ZAM prenium)
But if you are combining one of them with a security suite for example, such as Bitdefender IS, ZAM would be a better choice. It has great detection rates and is easy on resources, because it's mostly cloud based.

People who hate Pups would love MB(some may find it too agressive as a downside), and i find their web protection to be excellent. MB is also a more complete tool than ZAM.

ZAM on the other side has more FPs, but it's an almost essential complement to your security setup and at a very good price. 3yrs for 30 bucks, excellent

 

[Faybert]

Malwarebytes was good one day, after it turned anti-virus has become a weak detection program, and consumes a lot of computer resource. Zemana is much better.

 

[Lightning_Brian]

My vote goes to Zemana!! Malwarebytes use to be the best a while back.....However, that has all changed! How sad...I use an older version of Malwarebytes V2 which is better than V3 at the moment. I still get all of the updates and what not, but man Malwarebytes use to be so good and not its turned towards too much bloat.

ZAM is really great. Plus, you know what is really great about ZAM too - the nice giveaways of their premium protection as of lately. Cannot beat that! Even the free version of ZAM is better than Malwarebytes in my opinion. I have a few lifetime licenses of Malwarebytes that I leave inside my config, but if I didn't have these I'd remove it completely and just stick with ZAM 100%.

 

[bribon77]

Malwarebytes was good one day, after it turned anti-virus has become a weak detection program, and consumes a lot of computer resource. Zemana is much better.

That is a problem. that I see too