Which free AV has the fastest scan speed

[Albinoni]

Though alot of free AV software out there may do a good job in terms of their protection, I've found out that alot of them also have a slow scan speed/rate. say for eg if a user wanted to scan his/hers HDD it would seem to take for ever compared to the paid products, but than again you can't complain when your getting something for free. But again personally to me detection is better than scan speed/rate.

So out of all the free AV software out there which one do you think has the fastest scan rate/speed.

[JerryM]

In my experience Avira scans faster than Avast. I have not checked AVG.
I see no reason that the free version should scan slower than the paid, but maybe someone can fill me in on that.

Regards,
Jerry

[Inspector Clouseau]

The "fastest" scanspeed says basically nothing. There are quite a few complex viruses which are slowing down the scan speed if you want to detect them in a proper way.

[Stefan Kurtzhals]

For the user, the scan speed on clean files is relevant I think - not the scan speed on polymorphic or runtime packed malware.

[JerryM]

-{ Quote: "The "fastest" scanspeed says basically nothing. There are quite a few complex viruses which are slowing down the scan speed if you want to detect them in a proper way." }-

I would not disagree, but then does it follow that the slowest scanners are better at detecting malware?

Would that make Bit Defender, for example, better than NOD32?

Thanks,
Jerry

[Littlemutt]

I don't understand the obsession with 'scan-speed'. Set it to scan while your at work or sleeping, who cares how long it takes.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060920 Minefield/3.0a1, Firefox ID:2006092004 [cairo]

[JerryM]

For me as a user, I do not choose an AV based upon the scan speed. However, it is convenient to have a relatively fast scanner at times. I don't leave my machines on 24/7.

I am more concerned with detection rates, and load plus how well it runs with other applications.

Best,
Jerry

[tansu]

-{ Quote: "

So out of all the free AV software out there which one do you think has the fastest scan rate/speed." }-
Hi,
Here's my personal test with free AV's. I made it 05-24-2006 with the latest versions of them according to date. I used about 10000 malware, viruses, trojans and other stuff.. I full scanned the system with the default settings of each AV.
As well as, you interest in scan speeds here they are:


AVG:
14 Minutes 52 Seconds

Avast!:
11 Minutes 02 Seconds

Antivir:
10 Minutes 42 Seconds

Bitdefender Free:
09 Minutes 15 Seconds

ClamWin:
29 Minutes 54 Seconds

Edit: By the way I did this in vmware. I cloned the same virtual machine

[Inspector Clouseau]

-{ Quote: "For the user, the scan speed on clean files is relevant I think - not the scan speed on polymorphic or runtime packed malware." }-

Including detection of EPO viruses *DOES* slow down also the processing of clean files. Not that it scans 5 min per file more, but if you scan especially ONLY executable files with a lot of dedicated detection plugins you will notice a reasonable time difference when scanning lets say a few 100 gigabytes of executables.

[RejZoR]

And who has few 100GB of executables apart from virus lab :P
Executables alone pose very small % of all files. Biggest files are usually movies and texture resources of games.

[n8chavez]

-{ Quote: "I don't understand the obsession with 'scan-speed'. Set it to scan while your at work or sleeping, who cares how long it takes. " }-


You assume that every AV has a built in schedule function that will allow this. VBA32, for instance does not. So in this case, scanning speed is very important.

[FRug]

Scan speed is important for on access scanning, which is mostly what people refer to as "system slowdown" or "load"....

Funny though, that the AV with the worst detection rate also has the worst scanning speed... and for ClamAV that is certainly not because of their mere 3 or 4 dedicated poly detections.

[YeOldeStonecat]

-{ Quote: "I don't understand the obsession with 'scan-speed'. Set it to scan while your at work or sleeping, who cares how long it takes. " }-

For the home users...true. For those of us in the IT field...it's HUGE. And IMO, doesn't matter of fast on clean files and slow on other types..for me, it's assumed dirty..you're manually scanning a machine because it has problems...often the case of your install an AV product on an infected machine...and scan in safe mode to attempt to clean it.

[farmerlee]

From what i remember i think kaspersky had the fastest scan speed. The review stated it took KAV 8 mins to scan an 80 gig hdd. The next best was bitdefender at 20 mins and avg & nod32 at 24mins.

[lodore]

thats only with "scan new and changed files only" on as far as i know normaly a longer correct me if wrong

[ASpace]

-{ Quote: "For the home users...true. For those of us in the IT field...it's HUGE." }-

I don't think so . At work , I consider my self as Advanced but at home , I am home user, too . I mean it matters to all kind of user . Anybody can't wait the antivirus XYZ to scan the whole machine for hours when he/she can have another which scans for minutes .

When I install on client's machine(s) , then I have to perform full scan to ensure the machine is clean when I left it there , the scan speed here is priceless . :thumb:

[JerryM]

-{ Quote: "thats only with "scan new and changed files only" on as far as i know normaly a longer correct me if wrong" }-

The 8 minutes would have to be with "scan new and changed files only." Otherwise it takes 30-40 minutes. I personally see no reason not to use the shorter scan.
However BD9 always took over 40 minutes on the same machine, and NOD about 32 minutes. I found BD one of the longest scan times of the few that I tried including AVAST.
Jerry

[lodore]

oddly f-secure scanning is slow than bitdefender dont ask me why. i guess its because it uses kaspersky,ad aware and other engines.

[JerryM]

-{ Quote: "oddly f-secure scanning is slow than bitdefender dont ask me why. i guess its because it uses kaspersky,ad aware and other engines." }-

Sorry, I did overlook that F-Secure is at least as long as BD. I find them very similar in scan times, but if there is an advantage it goes to BD.

Jerry

[lodore]

i used to care that scans take ages but then thought bd has more support for packers etc. so its more through so i dont mind.

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "thats only with "scan new and changed files only" on as far as i know normaly a longer correct me if wrong" }-
I'd say they used out of the box settings, so it will be whatever bitdefender uses as default settings.