Avira vs Avast!

[Ramzes]

Hello.

Can you guys tell me some info about Avast! and Antivir. I want know which have better:
-detection rate
-better heuteristic
-definition number of viruses, worms, backdoors etc (now Avira have 745.000, what about Avast?)

I don't need things like adware scaner or http scaner (i'm using safe browser - not IE , and Spybot S&D for adware). All what i need is good software against viruses, trojans, worms and keyloggers. I know also after last update to Antivir has beed added rootkit scanner and e-mail protection. Thanks for helping me .

P.S. Sorry for my poor English, don't flame me please... .

Get's blowtorch j/k

Both are good, but from the sound of it Antivir might be your choice, it is top notch and you can't go wrong, enjoy!

[polak]

Attached link may be helpful.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

[Firecat]

Avira, because of mainly one reason: virus submission system, where AVIRA is very prompt and responsive while Avast leaves a lot to be desired, just like...ehh I should keep my mouth shut.

[EliteKiller]

It's all subjective, and each camp has a lot of faithful members. Just take a look at the front page of this forum: Avira vs. <insert competitor here>

Now that that's out of the way, I prefer Avira for several reasons. It has a better GUI, solid support, on-demand scanning is exceptional, and the heuristics are top notch. Couple those opinions with the AV-Comparitive URL that polak posted and it's obvious that the red umbrella is the way to go.

[rdsu]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Avira, because of mainly one reason: virus submission system, where AVIRA is very prompt and responsive while Avast leaves a lot to be desired, just like...ehh I should keep my mouth shut.

They are improving this a lot...

[FastGame]

AntiVir's latest update fiasco proves once again it has the worst system of the AV's, Avast has one of the best updaters.

IMO Avast has better support.

[JerryM]

Assuming both run well on your system I would choose Avira. However, an AV that is troublesome is not worth the bother. So try both, and if Avira runs well it has the better detection rate, but if not Avast is a very good AV.

Regards,
Jerry

[Jarmo P]

They are both good antiviruses.
Avasts update that is every 4 hours always jarred my computer for a few seconds and it was noticeable. AntiVir does not do that with the update, but Avast has a very strong point in that the update always works well.
If you use free Avira Classic, be prepared that sometimes the update servers are not found, times like these when serving for a new program download.

So they are both good, AntiVir's detection is on tops , but avast! is not too bad behind and the update of Avast is better for free versions users, especially if they are using a phone modem connection,

[the Tester]

Avira has better detection and better heuristics.
Avast has a much better update system.

Use what you prefer after comparing both.

[MalwareDie]

Since you are only considering detection rates, you shoudl go for Avira.

[Long View]

Although I now use Antivir I have also used Avast in the past and simply changed because I got bored. I would try both and pick the one you like based on gut feeling. Neither have ever found a virus for me but then I don't go looking for trouble.

[Ramzes]

Thanks for your posts. You are right, both programs are good, but i still with Avira .

[Tarq57]

I've used both, they're both good, I prefer Avast. Very configurable. Trouble free.
One big advantage Avast has is the ability to perform a boot scan, before windows (and any malware) drivers and dll's have been loaded. Which gives it an edge in removing certain things. (Don't ask me exactly what; I'm not that expert.)
Slightly off thread, I see you're using Spybot. It has it's uses, but I think something like Superantispyware (free version available) or SpywareTerminator (free resident antispy) would give you better protection and removal capabilities.
Others to consider there are Asquared, and AVG antispy. All those are likely to be better for trojans than most antivirus programs.

[MalwareDie]

Originally Posted by Tarq57

Others to consider there are Asquared, and AVG antispy. All those are likely to be better for trojans than most antivirus programs.

Actually, most antiviruses have far better trojan detection than the above apps you have mentioned.

[Wai_Wai]

First read this and judge yourself:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

It is a very credible website about antivirus comparatives site. It is unmatchable. Worth reading!
It is hard to find another site which is independent, unbaised, and provide long-hours of test work for free.

Originally Posted by Ramzes

Hello.
Can you guys tell me some info about Avast! and Antivir. I want know which have better:
-detection rate
-better heuteristic

In short, Antivir can even defeat kaspersky in both On-demand and Retrospective/ProActive Test (so-called heuteristic test to you). It is top-notch.
Avast! is about the medium among the software list in av-comparatives.

-definition number of viruses, worms, backdoors etc (now Avira have 745.000, what about Avast?)

Up till February 2007:
Antivir: 662,365
Avast: unknown or not disclosed

After all, if you think the number of definition files or signatures is proportional to its antivirus capabilities, it is a misconception. There is a weak link between both. Let me give you one example. It is just an example. A company writes a generic signature which can detect a number of viruses (eg 50). That counts as 1 signature only. Another company writes 5 specific signatures to detect 5 viruses respectively.

As you see in the example, we don't need to create a signature to detect 1 malware. What's more, there are also behavorial analysis and heuristics detections. You can't rely on the number of signatures to determine the detection rates of one antivirus.

Let me give you one real example this time. Kaspersky had 264,410 number of virus records in Aug 2006; while BitDefender had 458,019. However Kaspersky detected more malware samples than Bitdefender (~3% difference).

P.S. Sorry for my poor English, don't flame me please... .

Your English is bette than mine, so don't be worried.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by VaMPiRiC_CRoW

They are improving this a lot...

Yes, I know, but still they have some work to do in this regard. When they are good in this regard, I'll have no problem recommending Avast, and may even go ahead and buy the Pro version just to support the company.

Also Avast! has no heuristics currently (but their generic signatures are good), I hope this is resolved/improved in future.

BTW, Does anyone know anything about Avast 5.0?

[tsilo]

Antivir have better detection, better heuristic and apdates of Antivir premium security are much better then Avast!(Avast! updates once per day, while Antivir apdates several times per day.)

Avast! have more options and better can remove virus, also Avast! have skinable, better GUI than Antivir.

Antivir is much faster, but have more bugs.

Antivir is better in rootkits

Here it is what i noticed using both products...

[lucas1985]

Originally Posted by Firecat

BTW, Does anyone know anything about Avast 5.0?

According to vlk, they need first to improve their sample submission systems. See these posts made by him

Originally Posted by Wai_Wai

After all, if you think the number of definition files or signatures is proportional to its antivirus capabilities, it is a misconception. There is a weak link between both. Let me give you one example. It is just an example. A company writes a generic signature which can detect a number of viruses (eg 50). That counts as 1 signature only. Another company writes 5 specific signatures to detect 5 viruses respectively.

Let me give you one real example this time. Kaspersky had 264,410 number of virus records in Aug 2006; while BitDefender had 458,019. However Kaspersky detected more malware samples than Bitdefender (~3% difference)

Good point For example, Symantec has around 73,000 signatures and it detects far more malware than ClamAV which has more than 105,000 signatures.

[Badcompany]

Do both of these AV programs protect your e-mail inbox, ( Outlook Express.)
Badcompany.

[Londonbeat]

Originally Posted by Badcompany

Do both of these AV programs protect your e-mail inbox, ( Outlook Express.)
Badcompany.

Avast does, so does the paid version of Antivir, but the free version does not. However, Microsoft don't recommend using an email scanner with outlook express as corruption can occur.

Viral Irony: The Most Common Cause of Corruption

When encountering the symptoms of DBX corruption, many people immediately fear that their computer is infected with a virus. As surprising and ironic as it may seem though, the most common cause of DBX corruption is not a virus, but rather anti-virus programs that are configured to scan incoming or outgoing e-mail. Even the most well-known anti-virus programs have exhibited this problem from time to time. To lessen the risk of such corruption you should disable the e-mail scanning module in your anti-virus program. This is usually easy to do by looking at the user-configurable options in the anti-virus program. It is not at all necessary to scan e-mail for viruses to protect your computer.

See here.

Personally, I've never used an email scanner and don't see the need to use one, a background file scanner is sufficient.

[Badcompany]

Hi Londonbeat,
Thanks for your reply,What I don't understand is why do AV companies like Kaspersky and my own Drweb protect my e-mail inbox if it s not necessary,Drweb as saved me many a time from nastys in my e-mail.
Badcompany.

[Long View]

Originally Posted by Badcompany

why do AV companies like Kaspersky and my own Drweb protect my e-mail inbox if it s not necessary,
.

Perhaps because it sounds like a sensible idea and it sells product. From a marketing point of view the more features the better. Marketing people will add all sorts of unnecessary crap to sell their product.

Personally I prefer to have all my mail collected and cleaned before delivery. If something ever did slip thru I would hope that Antivir would stop it doing any damage. To be fair though I have never actually seen a virus so I might be wrong.

[C.S.J]

ive always loved email scanning, as long as it doesnt slow down the recieving of emails (kaspersky does slow down, but my drweb doesnt... this is not a jibe, just true)

ive always recieved more nastys through email than general surfing and downloading.

my email, although it does have an ISP spam blocker, alot still gets though which my drweb stops.

i can easily get 300 spam emails per week here, its actually quite bad, my brother hardly gets any, and id say about 40 a week make it through to my windows email, which drweb identifys as spam and does what its told
for the past month, i get alot of phising emails.

not sure if my ISP scans for viruses on incoming email, but definatly some have tried to get through, which again my drweb has stopped with its spidermail.

[Londonbeat]

@Badcompany

I agree with Long View re the marketing aspect, I imagine an AV company initially developed an email scanner as an extra feature/gimmik, then for fear of being "left behind" other AV's copied in developing their own. You can understand why as even in this forum some users trash another AV simply because it doesn't have an email scanner, when in reality they are not necessary if you have a background file scanner.
In the case of Dr Web, there is probably nothing Spidermail deals with that Spiderguard would not handle if Spidermail was disabled.