eTrust EZ Antivirus vs Avast free?

[JerryM]

eTrust EZ Antivirus from Computer Associates

I can get a years subscription free of the EZ AV. I am currently using the free Avast on my notebook computer.
Is there any significant difference in the protection between the two?
I can't seem to find much as to tests of EZ.

Now if that free year was for BD 9.0 I would take it, but I do not consider EZ nearly as good as BD

Jerry

[RejZoR]

Honestly i'd take avast! more serious regardless of eTrust's fame.
Though eTrust has much less settings and it's more tend to do everything automatically and not give user much choice.

[Chuck57]

I'd choose AVAST, although ETrust EZ uses the Vet engine which is very good from all accounts I've seen. My complaint about EZ is that it's too EZ. There isn't much configuration available. It does work though and if you use it, I think you'll be well protected.

[metallicakid15]

etrust is good enough if you dont use p2p or visit adult sites, or any other unfamiliar websites

[sosaiso]

Wow. I was just about to post about this question. I'd like to know too. How do the two compare in:

- virus detection?
- real time protection?
- resource/CPU use?
- update frequency?

I see that Avast has a lot of features that make it a better choice, but would there be any loss of protection by giving up the VET engine?

[RejZoR]

VET Engine isn't that great imo...

[bigc73542]

The Vet engine was one of the few av's that detected all of the windows WMF exploit.

[sosaiso]

So, I guess bigc, that means you recommend sticking with the VET engine? Sorry if I'm assuming too fast. But I read that you've tried most of these AVs. Any recommendations if you had to make the choice yourself?

[bigc73542]

Computer associates Antivirus products are not as popular with the av crowd here as some are but the Vet av engine is a very good one that doesn't use very many resources. It always get a good report at almost all testing sites. I personally use it off and on quite often since I have a license for CA internet security suite. I have used Avast in the past and personally don't like it. But quite a few people do. I would pick Etrust av but like I always try to convey in my postings is that the final decision is yours and all I can do is give my educated opinion.

bigc

[sosaiso]

Originally Posted by bigc73542

all I can do is give my educated opinion.

bigc

And your experience, which you always do.

[metallicakid15]

i still recommened etrust

Avast is incomparable when it comes to features and modules, with mail scanning, web scanning, P2P, IM and best of all, network IDS and blocking, all this for free, there is no substitute really.

[chiawaikian]

I am using the VET engine and I find it quite effective. I haven't tried Avast though so I cannot compare the two.

[TAP]

In my opinion, eTrust EZ Antivirus is nothing special but a full-automatic antivirus that mainly designed for novice home users, eTrust EZ doesn't detect adware/spyware and as far as I know eTrust Antivirus (Vet+Inoculate) has a very *low* overall detection rates (zoo malware) so it hasn't qualified to get tested at av-comparatives.org

Although eTrust can detect all of the windows WMF exploit (yes, avast! home can detect them all too), but I doubt that how can eTrust protect users from this exploit? eTrust has a basic file-based real-time scanner that will scan files that being read/written to a local disk, when WMF exploit images get automatically executed/rendering in browsers (actually by a Windows Picture and Fax Viewer) without being written to a local disk first so it's probably too late for eTrust (and other AVs that have no real-time HTTP scanner) to guard it so users will get infected by trojan, adware, spyware and then eTrust detects malware and users get warned but it's too late.

avast! home is vice versa, it has real-time HTTP scanner so it can detect WMF exploit images in packet and *stop* it before it gets executed in browsers, WMF exploit images *have no* chances to get into your computer.

One thing I REALLY like about avast! home is the boot-time scanner. It's great for detecting/eliminating malware that running in OS memory " because it does the scan before malware can get
themselves loaded into memory." I think I don't find this feature in eTrust or other AVs.

If you're serious to finding a good AVs that equally good to paid AVs so I'd recommend avast! home edition.

[bigc73542]

Tap you are a bit uninformed as to the way the vet engine works, it does scan email and it does scan memory it does detect trojans, worms and other malware also. And just because it isn't tested at av-comparatives doesn't mean much to me seeing as how etrust is rated pretty high, way above Avast at Virus Bulletin and at west coast labs. but the choice is for the individual user to decide on in the long run.

[FastGame]

Originally Posted by bigc73542

And just because it isn't tested at av-comparatives doesn't mean much to me seeing as how etrust is rated pretty high, way above Avast at Virus Bulletin and at west coast labs. but the choice is for the individual user to decide on in the long run.

I wasn't aware that Virus Bulletin and West Coast Labs had a rating system, certainly not one that says etrust is rated way above avast!. Are you talking about the year to year thing ? is a software not allowed to improve over the years ? or get worst ? So if avast! passes today doesn't count because of what happened years ago ? and an AV that doesn't pass today is still great because of years past ?

Also, if you have a link to Alwil and West Coast Labs I'd like to see it.
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?top...sg8918#msg8918

[bigc73542]

When I said Rated higher I am refering to detection rates. It wasn't very hard to figure out what I meant.

[bigc73542]

It seems that since West Coast labs redesigned their site I can't locate a reference to Alwil anymore. They possibly don't test Free versions of products at this time. But I know for sure that they still do at VB.

[Cerxes]

Originally Posted by TAP

In my opinion, eTrust EZ Antivirus is nothing special but a full-automatic antivirus that mainly designed for novice home users, eTrust EZ doesn't detect adware/spyware and as far as I know eTrust Antivirus (Vet+Inoculate) has a very *low* overall detection rates (zoo malware) so it hasn't qualified to get tested at av-comparatives.org

Although eTrust can detect all of the windows WMF exploit (yes, avast! home can detect them all too), but I doubt that how can eTrust protect users fromthis exploit? eTrust has a basic file-based real-time scanner that will scan files that being read/written to a local disk, when WMF exploit images get automatically executed/rendering in browsers (actually by a Windows Picture and Fax Viewer) without being written to a local disk first so it's probably too late for eTrust (and other AVs that have no real-time HTTP scanner) to guard it so users will get infected by trojan, adware, spyware and then eTrust detects malware and users get warned but it's too late.

I agree that you can´t configure eTrust EZ as compared to other AV-softwares. However, that doesn´t mean that it can´t catch spyware/trojans, because it can, same as many other AV-brands. However it´s always best to use a dedicated anti-trojan/-spyware product regarding to the (hopefully) higher detection/cleaning rate. And by the way Jerry, why don´t you use both of them? They doesn´t hook to the same memory storage so there will be no conflict if you only install the Network, P2P and Webshield modules in avast!

Regards, C.

P.S. avast! isn´t a star in heuristics either... D.S.

[RejZoR]

avast! doesn't have heuristics in Standard Shield but in AV-Comparatives it did better than many products that have so called heuristics (in Proactive/Retrospective tests). So i wouldn't solely rely on fact that it doesn't have any heuristics...

[Albinoni]

How would you compare the eTrust Engine against Bitdefender Pro 9 engine and overall would you say that BD is a better antivirus than eTrust or even Avast ?

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by Albinoni

How would you compare the eTrust Engine against Bitdefender Pro 9 engine and overall would you say that BD is a better antivirus than eTrust or even Avast ?

They can't really be compared. BitDefender is a top-tier product, while eTrust's VET engine is moderate. avast! is better, and is on top of the moderate.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Try both and see which one you prefer. I've installed both of them many many times on lots of little "free" jobs that I do, on all sorts of various hardware.

My observations based on all those various installs, Avast is stronger in the ad/spy/malware/trojan downloader area, but much much heavier than CA's eTrust (slows down computer considerably).

CA's eTrust...much lighter, default install settings are nice and easy for average users. Updates aren't as frequent on automatic, for users who boot up and surf for brief times. Have to tell peeps to keep an eye on that.

[hbkh]

Originally Posted by bigc73542

It seems that since West Coast labs redesigned their site I can't locate a reference to Alwil anymore. They possibly don't test Free versions of products at this time. But I know for sure that they still do at VB.

Bigc, I would have to repectfully disagree about VB being a good comparison of detections rates. Firstly, (as has been stated many times here before) VB only tests for ITW viruses which only represent a small portion of the total virus population, while av-compariatives and av-test.org and a few others test for ITW and ZOO which will represent a more realistic figure of detection (although still not totally accurate but better). Secondly, Avast! is tested on Linux by VB where VET is not which gives avast! the potential to fail more, simply b/c it is tested more (detection rates have been know to vary from linux to windows) so if you are adding up pass/fails to see who is better I would remove avast!'s linux tests from that (as they do not represent your windows environment). Lastly, I agreee with FastGame, software (usually) improves over time, so I think it is an unfair comparison to use VB's test from over 5 years ago to judge detection today. So if i was going to compare these to products using VB I would only compare the test from the last (just to be fair) 24 months and remove avast!'s linux tests. If you do this then you'll notice avast! has similar detection to VET at the minimum.

Cheers,
hbkh

[mercurie]

I have used EZ AV for two years along with BoClean and OutPost FW with realtime Spyware Protection plugin and I sleep really well at night. Protects just great.

For those who want simple good protection that is light on resources I recommend it. I have an older Compaq and resource useage is an issue. You should be fine. I do recommend adding an AT and if you want an extra measure a real time Spyware killer.