AVG vs. Norton

[Murray]

Do any of you have an opinion on which antivirus program is better, Norton or AVG? I already have Norton, and have just downloaded AVG. Can both of these programs be used together, or would that be silly?

[octogen]

I am by no means an expert, but the general wisdom seems to say not to have two AV programs running resident simultaneously, however it is good to have more than one AV used as on-demand scanners.

As far as which is better, I have not used either one so couldn't address ease of use, system slow-down, etc., but from what I see from various tests, IMHO, NAV would have the edge on detection rate.

[octogen]

Sorry, forgot to add that what I meant by "detection rate", was detection of strictly viruses. :)

[Paul Wilders]

Hi octogen,

{QUOTE-> Sorry, forgot to add that what I meant by "detection rate", was detection of strictly viruses. <-QUOTE}

Without any doubt: Norton.

regards.

paul

[Technodrome]

Norton by far more....


Technodrome

[TonyKlein]

And by even more: Norton :D :D

And if you'd like to have a second opinion at your disposal, Dr Web or Nod32 would be far better choices.

[wizard]

The answer is simple: NAV but I would not recommend to use it because there are several much better av programs available.

wizard

[the Tester]

Have you checked out virus bulletin awards website?It has independent av tests by manufacturer and operating system.That's the site I used as a research tool before settling on NOD32.

[Rickster]

Norton – hands down. I agree with Tester on the statistical value of Virus Bulletin’s test data. AVG (Grisoft) has a mere 6% passing rate, so why bother. With all deference to Tony’s point, I can’t put Dr. Web and NOD32 in the same sentence. Dr. Web (Dialogue Science) scores less in than 50% in test submissions – so again, not even close. The only thing relevant in AV are ‘In The Wild’ detection rates, making VB test data the only logical source on to base performance decisions on. The only superceding issue would be program compatibility. NOD32 is the obvious winner, but for your purposes Murray, Norton turns in very respectable performance. Study results carefully - then choose.

Go To: http://toronto.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200206

Click on > ‘Archives’, then ‘By Product’ - (Or Summary, for an overview).

[Technodrome]

Rickster, do you really think that In the Wild viruses are only ones out there? DrWeb might be (is) better in other fields. You are comparing one source and making decision. Who is better ?

Comparing VB results is only good if you are looking for In the Wild (ITW) viruses’ detection. What about other viruses? Where are they? Certainly VB is a good source but for ITW viruses, that’s all.

----You should know that many products didn't get award due false positives!---


Technodrome

[UNICRON]

yes it was a false positive that ruined NOD32's perfect record. I wish VB would state the reason why a AV failed to get an award. I'd prefer a false positive to a missed virus any day.

[Rickster]

Believe me Techno, I know your view on ITW. I viewed AV debates here and other forums a long time before the crew here enlightened me to the existence of VB data. I’m an analyst at heart. Testing a boat in a swimming pool is one thing, but turning it loose on the high seas is another matter. VB is the only clear indication of how well AV developers find, analyze and updates their customers in the real world environment (on the high seas) and that’s all that really matters. False positives probably aren’t fair, but shouldn’t be taken lightly. They can be a huge drain on resources. Like the alarm on my car, I want it to alert me only when a window or door is breeched – not when other people make a noise, but that’s a quality issue. Having said that, I’m merely passing along something I learned here after a very exhaustive hunt for the core issue on AV. It was like tuning a radio and finally getting through all the noise. I’m not alone on this, but respect your position Techno – I may not understand it, but I will always respect it.

[Technodrome]

I meant no harm Rickster! ;)

I just tried to point a few things, nothing behind that!

I respect your position as well!


Technodrome

[root]

UNICRON, you are soooooo right. I am currently using DrWeb and I know how many false positives it comes up with. I am sure this is why it fares so badly at VB. I wish they would give out a little more information, so that sensible decisions could be made.
Before DrWeb I had AVP, and in the months that it was failing VB, I never had it miss a virus, worm, or trojan, and indeed it caught many that NAV and McAfee missed.
I have learned to take VBs results with a grain of salt because there is more there than meets the eye. I do not believe they have skewed results because of economics or anything like that. My experience has been that in the real world, the best performing AVs do not always perform best at Virus Bulletin.
Last thought. I have never used AVG, but I have heard from a lot of people that they have had good results from it.

[Raygun]

I'd go with AVG as I think norton is bloat ware and doesn't play nice with a lot of other software. just my 2 cents... I installed AVG on a system for a friend and it's done it's job well so far with lower resource use then norton. Personally the only thing I like from norton is ghost, but that's just me. What ever you do keep this list for on-line tests!!!

BitDefender http://www.bitdefender.com/scan/licence.php

Panda Software http://www.pandasoftware.es/activescan/activescan-com.asp

PC Pitstop http://www.pcpitstop.com/antivirus/avload.asp

Symantec Online Scan http://security2.norton.com

Trend Micro HouseCall http://housecall.antivirus.com/