Malwarebytes vs. Spybot

[tommyk]

I've used Spybot for years and it has worked very well. The only problem is it takes forever to do a scan.

 

I've tried Malwarebytes and it is far quicker.

 

If you had to pick between the two what would you suggest?

 

Thanks

[hazelnut]

Tommy A verses B threads are discouraged.

 

However it looks as though you may have answered your own question regarding the speed scanning capabilities of each of the products.

 

It is generally accepted that MBAM is a very good tool to have in your security tool box, although Spybot is still a well used product.

 

It boils down to giving them both a try perhaps on your system and seeing which one suits the way you run your computer best.

[redhawk]

Fast or slow you can never win the argument because speed isn't a suitable measurement for the efficiency of detected malware.

If you're serious about finding bad things on your computer then don't rely on one tool use several such as Malwarebytes and Spybot together.

 

Richard S.

[kroozer]

Tommy you are comparing apples to oranges by comparing quick scans to full scans. I use both of them plus Avast and Defender and lately keep time records of my full scans.

Spybot always performs a full scan and you are comparing it to Mbam's quick scan.

If scan speed is important I suggest you keep a record of full and quick scans to determine which program is best for you.

 

btw, Spybot saved me recently where other's failed. See my post #5 http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=28501&st=0&p=170985&fromsearch=1entry170985

 

 

Edited

[Stocker360]

I use Spybot to immunize while Malwarebytes to scan

[Andavari]

Spybot-S&D while some will say it's outdated is still useful as detailed by Stocker360 for it's immunization - although all that immunizing really bogs down/screws with Firefox when wanting to add a blocked site/cookies. Also can't forget about Spybot-S&D's built-in free TeaTimer real-time protection.

[ident]

why are people so hung up on scans?