Antivirus speed and detection

[Pfipps]

I looked at NOD32 and compared it with Kaspersky. It seems that Kaspersky has slightly better real time protection. However, sites like AV-comparatives

use the maximum settings. People running Kaspersky usually run the recommended settings. Maxing out NOD32 on a pc really doesn't have that much of a performance hit at all.

So is Kaspersky really as effective as it is tested using the recommended settings versus the max settings on NOD32? I read a lot posts either saying that NOD32 is over rated or just plain bashing of the program.

 

It would be nice if the testing organizations will have "default" and "max" results.

[slowday444]

I'm a NOD32 owner/user/lover! Am I technically empowered? Nope. What I do no is that the NOD users take it personal when they don't test highly and they claim that it is the way the tests are conducted. Don't know if that is a valid argument or not. However, what I do know is that it blows all the other products away in recognizing and blocking brand new threats. Nothing else ever even comes close. They conduct that test by not updating signatures for a month or so and then hitting them with known malware.

[Andavari]

Both are good. People praise Kaspersky for being slower than most and because of its detection, and vice-versa people praise NOD32 for being faster than most and it's detection. Just choose your flavour!

 

Another fast AV is Avira AntiVir free and paid versions.

 

Edit: Many AV's need to be set to maximum levels as many are set at a default level so they won't impact system performance especially on some lower spec PC's, however if you have a more modern PC with a faster processor setting them to maximum may not effect system performance.

[Pfipps]

Edit: Many AV's need to be set to maximum levels as many are set at a default level so they won't impact system performance especially on some lower spec PC's, however if you have a more modern PC with a faster processor setting them to maximum may not effect system performance.

 

I am on a high end HP pavilion laptop (7200 rpm HD, Core 2 Duo T7500 (2.2GHZ), 2g ram etc.) It is true that on-access performance in Kaspersky is pretty good, even when I scan all files, but the web component really slows things down compared to IMON in NOD32. NOD32 is so fast that anything else feels slow. However, I know that AVIRA is on par (some tests say even better) with NOD32 in terms of speed and effective detection, heuristics is another story.

[Terry4040]

Both are good. People praise Kaspersky for being slower than most and because of its detection, and vice-versa people praise NOD32 for being faster than most and it's detection. Just choose your flavour!

 

Another fast AV is Avira AntiVir free and paid versions.

 

Edit: Many AV's need to be set to maximum levels as many are set at a default level so they won't impact system performance especially on some lower spec PC's, however if you have a more modern PC with a faster processor setting them to maximum may not effect system performance.

 

I am a newbie to this forum, as far as posting. I have lurked on and off for quite some time, but this is my first time to post.

 

I have been using McAfee Anti-Virus for the last few years, and it seems to do the job, but I am thinking of trying one of the free AV programs. I know that AVG is supposed to be good, but these programs discussed in this thread, NOD32 and Kapersky - are they freeware? And how do they compare with AVG, or for that matter, with McAfee?

[Andavari]

NOD32 and Kapersky - are they freeware? And how do they compare with AVG, or for that matter, with McAfee?

No they aren't freeware, they're commercial software.

 

Comparisons of virus detection and cleaning can be found online at sites like ICSA Labs. Other comparisons like resource usage, etc., really needs to be done on an individual basis to evaluate how they react with your system configuration.

 

I haven't used McAfee for years therefore I really can't comment on its current form.

[Terry4040]

No they aren't freeware, they're commercial software.

 

Comparisons of virus detection and cleaning can be found online at sites like ICSA Labs. Other comparisons like resource usage, etc., really needs to be done on an individual basis to evaluate how they react with your system configuration.

 

I haven't used McAfee for years therefore I really can't comment on its current form.

 

Thanks for the link. I jumped over there and checked out the Certified AV programs... looked like they ALL "passed," on a pass/fail basis, but is there any URL which devotes time to actually making critical comparisons among commercial, shareware or freeware programs by testing each against certain criteria?

[Pfipps]

A great link is www.av-comparatives.org for comparing antiviruses.

 

McAfee has solid performance all the time, although Norton tends to do better in the tests.

That link also points to other testing sites, but av comparatives is the most detailed and accessible.

For example, av-test.org doesn't release detailed reports.

 

Bottom line, even av-comparatives states that an AV with ICSA labs ratings 1 and 2, and a virus bulletin approval will

perform fine even if it gets the STANDARD rating on av comparatives.