Which of these is better?

[Slovak]

etrust ez antivirus or avast free?

[Firecat]

If you want to go feature-wise or support wise, eTrust.

Otherwise, Avast! is better (in detection and updates).

You cant go wrong with either of these two products. :)

[bigc73542]

I will have to disagree with Firecat on avast having better detection. I just looked on three av testing sites ( the three big ones) and eTrust detection is very respectable very good in fact. And my Etrust av updates every day sometimes twice daily.


avast (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avist.xml)



Ca. Vet (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?vet.xml)



CA. Inoculate. (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?etrust.xml)


All of the sites that I looked at ran about the same results give or take a little.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> I will have to disagree with Firecat on avast having better detection. I just looked on three av testing sites ( the three big ones) and eTrust detection is very respectable very good in fact.


avast (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avist.xml)



Ca. Vet (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?vet.xml)


All of the sites that I looked at ran about the same results give or take a little.



CA. Inoculate. (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?etrust.xml) <-QUOTE}What about features?

[bigc73542]

features may mean more to some than others. My self I will go with detection and protection. All of the bells and whistles being added to so many of the av products anymore don't necessarily mean that they work better, in some cases it is just the oposite .

[Arup]

No problems with Avast's detection rates and the modules it has only make it better, when running without firewall, it blocks DCOM and many other exploits, its P2P and IM modules too work nice, also its mail scanning, in fact, the only reason Avast is not popular is because its free and gives all these features, people would rather go by vanity and pay and then suffer from bloat.

[bigc73542]

with all of those modules it sounds as if avast is working on bloat.;) But all kidding aside it is best just to run the antivirus program that you are most comfortable with, Be it Nod Kav,Nav Etrust mcafee or what ever. If it is working well for you then you don't need anything better or at least touted to be better. I have honestly tried every antivirus I have ever seen mentioned on this forum and some are really crap but most have multiple good points and if one of those does a competent job on your computer why spend more money to get something that is not going to do any better than the one you have that is doing a respectable job and you are satisfied with. And I don't care how many people tell you that their antivirus is the best, don't buy into it. There really is not a best antivirus there are just antivirus programs that may be stronger in one area or the other. And that is why you should trial several av's to get a feel in the differences and see which is actually the one you feel the best with.

[Arup]

Its still far less bloat than KAV or Norton and it has minimal impact on a system, yes, ultimately it comes down to each his own.

[hollywoodpc]

With all due respect , cool it on Norton and KAV . That was not part of the question .
EZ is better than Avast in protection . I do not think there should be any doubt . As for features , BigC is correct in my opinion . EZ Trust has features . Enough to play with . Bottom line is EZ will give more protection than Avast . I do not use either of them now but , have used them in the past per testing . Both will do a good job . See which one you like the best on YOUR system . EZ gives a little better protection but , for a home user , depending on your habits , Avast may be fine for you .
Hope that helps

[Arup]

Nope, neither Norton nor KAV was part of the original question, but the word bloat was mentioned and they were used as comparison, guess thats legit to do and therefore no need to defend them either.. As for E Trust being better, well I for one would not agree and neither would I agree to it having more features than Avast, actually Avast has run out of features to put, but as I said, to each his/her own.

[hollywoodpc]

Sorry Slovak if I confused you .
I did not say EZ has more features . I would say Avast has more without a doubt . I agreed with BigC and I said that EZ has enough features in itself . I apologize for any confusion .

[Arup]

Hollywood,

What AV are you currently running? If you do get a chance, in two weeks try out the new Avast 4.19 which currently with all modules enabled runs at under 15mb.

[hollywoodpc]

I might just do that to see how it fares . Are you saying a new updated version is coming in about two weeks ?

[Arup]

Yep, I am running the beta right now, pretty good and very tight mem use.

[hollywoodpc]

Is it public beta ? I do not wish to be part of their beat team . Just want to test it out for myself and report on what I find to people that care . Thanks dude .

[RejZoR]

Sorry but comparing AVs only with VB100% is BS. Especially not in eTrust case...

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> etrust ez antivirus or avast free? <-QUOTE}
IMO, for newbies who are safe surfers and do not like tweaking settings; Etrust.

Otherwise, Avast. Detection rates of the two are also shown here (http://av-test.mycity.co.yu/uporedna_tabela_en.html) and here. (http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=69&mnu=69)

Overall, Avast would give better protection against zoo malware. Both programs are weak in support for packed files, but Avast is better in archive support.
{QUOTE-> If you want to go feature-wise or support wise, eTrust. <-QUOTE}
I disagee here, particularly with support.The Avast forum is superb!

[Arup]

{QUOTE-> Is it public beta ? I do not wish to be part of their beat team . Just want to test it out for myself and report on what I find to people that care . Thanks dude . <-QUOTE}


hollywood,

Its public beta, in case you are interested to do some testing, download Avast home, install it, reboot and update VPS, then download hxxp://files.avast.com/files/beta/aswbeta.exe and click on it, this will install the latest beta.

Tell me how it goes.

[hollywoodpc]

Thanks Arup . Is this the 4.19 ? And , is a newer one on the way ?

[Arup]

This is the version slated to be released in two weeks pending feedback.

[Slovak]

{QUOTE->

What AV are you currently running? If you do get a chance, in two weeks try out the new Avast 4.19 which currently with all modules enabled runs at under 15mb. <-QUOTE}
I am currently running Avast on all my home computers, and thought the other might be better since it is a pay antivirus, except for getting it free for one year through microsoft.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Effectiveness between the two as to who's better with detection can be an endless debate, depending on which site you read...but one thing I can state, after installing quite a few of the two on various PC...

eTrust is a heck of a lot "lighter"...doesn't bog down PCs as much. Each machine I put Avast on...the next reboot..and all after...are painfully slow. Even the end users complain about that...."Why is my PC so slow now?" I always here.

[Arup]

Funny, apart from Clam, Anti Vir and F-Prot, all other AV will slow down PC, try putting a KAV on a 500MHz Celeron with 64MB RAM, you will see my point, in terms of speed impact among full featured anti virus, Avast is not the only one that slows machine down. eTrust doesn't have many of Avast's modules so I expect it to be faster, but then for speed I will take Anti Vir any day. As I said, Avast's network scanner will protect you from DCOM and Sasser exploits in case your firewall compromises you.

Slovak,

If you feel better and wish to support future Avast dev, you can pay for the pro one, point is, the free version offers everything the pro does except for script blocking and advanced interface, maybe Alwil should now seriously think about removing some features on the Home version to get truly appreciated.

[YeOldeStonecat]

{QUOTE-> Funny, apart from Clam, Anti Vir and F-Prot, all other AV will slow down PC, try putting a KAV on a 500MHz Celeron with 64MB RAM, you will see my point,

Avast's network scanner will protect you from DCOM and Sasser exploits in case your firewall compromises you. <-QUOTE}

Forgot NOD32. ;D

And just keeping your windows updates up to date, your OS can shrug off most of those DCOM bad guys even without antivirus protection.

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> Funny, apart from Clam, Anti Vir and F-Prot, all other AV will slow down PC, <-QUOTE}
Try Dr Web, Command AV, VBA32, AVP 3.5 ;)
{QUOTE-> try putting a KAV on a 500MHz Celeron with 64MB RAM, you will see my point. <-QUOTE}
IME, AVP 3.5, KAV 5 and KAV 2006 beta will run quite happily on old machines such as this one. And even KAV 4.5 will if properly tweaked.

Most people who report that KAV is a resource hog have either simply reported other people's experiences, have used the default settings without the necessary tweaks or have installed AVP/KAV on a machine which has not had previously installed AV's completely removed.

[EraserHW]

I've a question: Has eTrust incremental updates as Avast?

Avast is surprisingly light when updating it on a 56k modem (after the first update). Is eTrust as light as avast when updating its signatures?

And then, if you have a 56k modem then Avast can automatically download updates every time you connect to Internet, as soon as modem connected to internet. This is wonderful. Can eTrust do it?

Thanks :)

[bigc73542]

Etrust updates seem to be small indicating incremental. And it will check for updates on bootup. and can be set for other times also. eTrustEZ is pretty good but I prefer the eTrust R7.1 enterprise which on newegg is cheaper the ezav and has two scan engines. You are going to have to do some looking to find a lighter AV. All I can do is tell you my experience with it which has been stellar.

[Arup]

Nod slows down my dual CPU machine and therefore will not go to the light AV list of mine yes, I have tried KAV with the default setting and am reporting from my personal experience, Dr. Web wasn't' a load but it did crash from time to time. As I said, to each his own, I see a big fan following of Nod here but to me, had nothing that would appeal me to make a switch, specially when there are other alternatives out there, paid of free.

As for hardening the OS, thats fine, but would also like to have the extra protection from network worms and Avast network shield does that, hardening won't protect me from worms. Same goes for webshield, prefer to see the malware get nipped in traffic rather than come inside the machine and then get detected.

[Kerodo]

I have used Avast home edition for years and never had any problems. It is so feature rich that I am amazed that it's offered as such for free. The web shield alone is worth paying for. I don't encounter viruses that often, but every time I have, Avast has caught it, and when it comes to browsing at dubious sites, which does happen occasionally, Avast always catches any nasties immediately before it ever even hits my HD, which to me is just great.

It is quite complex with all the various modules, however, ram usage is quite low considering, and there is no cpu load at all that I have ever seen.

So why pay for something when you get all this for free? If someone claims that another AV has a better detection rating (which is about the only way one could claim their AV might be better), then I would have to say that 99.9% of the time, who cares? It's one thing to test an AV by throwing 10 tons of crap at it, and quite another thing to just use your computer normally in everyday use.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth on Avast. IMO, it can't be beat..

[TAP]

For me avast! home is better than CA eTrust EZ (and also some other pay AVs) in many aspects but for some aspects CA eTrust EZ is better than avast! home.

There're my reasons- http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=582343&postcount=168

My word "better" means, it's all about what you expect from the product and the ability of your own selection/thinking/knowledge, it doesn't mean that CA eTrust and avast! home are always bad/good for every one. For me avast! home is what I want from the AV product, I'd tried CA eTrust EZ for many time but it can't beat avast! home in anyway.

Although, in my opinion, avast!'s overall detection rates of Zoo malware are not so hot as Kaspersky, McAfee, NOD32, BitDefender but avast! is always good at ITW malware and it can detect a large number of Zoo malware so that should be a good protections is the real world.

[woobook]

{QUOTE-> Etrust updates seem to be small indicating incremental. And it will check for updates on bootup. and can be set for other times also. eTrustEZ is pretty good but I prefer the eTrust R7.1 enterprise which on newegg is cheaper the ezav and has two scan engines. You are going to have to do some looking to find a lighter AV. All I can do is tell you my experience with it which has been stellar. <-QUOTE}

I think eTrust R7.1 enterprise is suitable to Windows 2003 Server not Windows XP Home, is it right? and its engine could not be upgraded, I think it is old.

[Albinoni]

No I dont know how true this is but I've read whilst Avast had very good detection rates etc when it comes to curing the virus its not very good. Is this true ?

[RejZoR]

Not sure exactly but VRDB should do fairly good against parasitic malware.
Havenn't seen any parasitic malware for ages, and even if i did i never had to cure any files...

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> I think eTrust R7.1 enterprise is suitable to Windows 2003 Server not Windows XP Home, is it right? and its engine could not be upgraded, I think it is old. <-QUOTE}


It does update the engine and drivers quite often and it works perfectly on XP home as that is what I have it on. And it updates the defs for both engines at least once a day some times more if needed. It has started adding a lot of trojan and malware defs for a while now.

[woobook]

{QUOTE-> It does update the engine and drivers quite often and it works perfectly on XP home as that is what I have it on. And it updates the defs for both engines at least once a day some times more if needed. It has started adding a lot of trojan and malware defs for a while now. <-QUOTE}

oh sorry bigc, I mean this one "eav7promo", which I learned from you and downloaded it;D

[leafsfan1313]

Personally, I think eTrust is better. I really like the ease of use, and how it automatically cleans if a virus is detected, where as avast you have to click a button. eTrust also doesn't have much of an impact on my system. When I had avast on my computer, it took quite a long time to load. I'm not quite sure how they compare detection-wise, but I'd say they're probably about the same.

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> oh sorry bigc, I mean this one "eav7promo", which I learned from you and downloaded it;D <-QUOTE}


the promo is the same as eTrust R7.1 enterprise it is just an older version that does not have as good trojan and malware detection. and doesn't get the engine updates where as R7.1 does.

[TAP]

{QUOTE-> eTrust also doesn't have much of an impact on my system. When I had avast on my computer, it took quite a long time to load. <-QUOTE}

You can't simply compare eTrust EZ and avast! home this way. I think that's because of avast! home has so-called multi-layer real-time protection (e.g. real-time network/HTTP scanner, real-time file scanner, etc.) so it's normal that avast! home should take a bit long time to load than eTrust EZ, because of eTrust EZ only has a basic real-time scanner (files,e-mail). If you want compare, you have to install avast! home with standard shield and internet mail only.


{QUOTE-> Personally, I think eTrust is better <-QUOTE}

I think it may not in the real world.

Take a look at the latest Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-053 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS05-053.mspx so the Web Shield (real-time HTTP scanner) of avast! home is probably the only way to stop this kind of exploit malware when an unpatched Windows surfing malicious websites. While Microsoft doesn't allow an illegal Windows users to use an auto update so there're so many million users who still unpacted in the real world.

There're so many exploit malware that execute in memory only without writing anything to harddisk so a basic real-time file scanner of eTrust EZ probably can't protect you, Web Shield (real-time HTTP scanner) of avast! home is the right solution.


{QUOTE-> I really like the ease of use, and how it automatically cleans if a virus is detected, where as avast you have to click a button. <-QUOTE}

Yes, the automatically virus cleanning available only in avast! Pro, while in avast! home you can use so-called silent mode that will move an infected files/malware itself to the virus chest (quarantine) or automatically terminate your machine and servers that host malware.

But today there're a few file-infector virus/malware that are in the wild, but there're plentiful of worms, trojan, adware, spyware that can't be repaired so the only way to get rid of them is deleting or moving them to quarantine.

[wubook]

I think avast maybe have better detection rate than eTrust. eTrust is specially focus on anti-virus not trojan or spy. If I use avast I should also run another antispyware and anti trojan. For surfing safely we must have an antivirus, an antispy, anti trojan and a firewall. In the suit of eTrust it has an antivirus, PestPatrol can antispy and trojan and the strong firewall which also can protect host and trojan. They look like three men, every body does its speciall work effectively.
So I dont worry its low detection rate. I like three men cooperating smoothly.

I don't know which is better between avast and eTrust, I just feel eTrust is enough.

[leafsfan1313]

{QUOTE-> Yes, the automatically virus cleanning available only in avast! Pro, while in avast! home you can use so-called silent mode that will move an infected files/malware itself to the virus chest (quarantine) or automatically terminate your machine and servers that host malware.
<-QUOTE}

How do you enable the silent mode? Last time I had avast, it said silent mode is for pro only. That'd be great if I could enable silent mode.
I actually really liked avast, but it just seemed a little heavy on startup, and you have to click a button everytime something is detected. You pointed out some interesting things though, I may give avast another go.

[Slovak]

I suppose instead of asking which is better, I should have asked which has known better detection rates, less false positives, and uses less resources in general. I didn't intend to start an argument between Avast lovers and etrust lovers.