Is NOD32 better than Kaspersky?

Hi all,

I've been using KAV Pro for several years now and I have had no problems with it. Yet, after reading up on NOD32 it seems that this AV pretty much rocks. Can I get ya'lls opinion on NOD32 and why you chose it over other AVs? Also, do you think NOD32 is better than Kaspersky?

Thanks!

John

 

NOD is different. It has heuristics that are far better than what KAV now has. But KAV has more signatures. But Eset has been busy with upgrading their defs too. With NOD and with KAV you are well protected. But NOD has a much lighter footprint plus a faster scan engine. Half an hour on a big harddisk filled with programmes where KAV takes about two to three hours. I went from KAv to NOD32.

 

I've moved this from the NOD forum to the "other AVs" forum as it is a comparative question. You can also search this forum but mostly you will find endless debate on this subject

 

For the love of God , use the search fonction please... my eyes are bleeding
with the old Kaspersky/NOD 32 debate.

There are countless threads like this one , look for them and use the AV that
suits your need.

 

Is coffee better than tea?

What do you mean by "better"?

You will be fine with either, provided you wear a tin foil hat

 

Not to say it doesn't "rock" but keep in mind NOD's official forums are on these boards, so IMO you will tend to see more "hype" for NOD. Both are great AV's and no matter which one you pick, you won't go wrong.

Just an FYI, I use Kaspersy Pro.

 

Which sort of foil would you advise? Would gold leaf be better than tin foil? Which shape hat do people find is best? Peak or no peak? How many layers of foil? Loose-fitting or tight-fitting? With or without a brim? Will standard aluminium be OK or should I try and get foil made from real tin? How about matching gloves...

 

Oh matching gloves...now your`re talking foolish.

 

I consider them both tops. Kapersky historically has had a better record in dealing with "other than viruses"..example....malware...trojans, ad/spyware, etc.

NOD32 recently beefed up that area with the introduction of versions 2.50, and in the past couple of months...huge leaps in definitions.

I chose NOD because it has less of a system performance impact than KAV, both for my home systems because I game a lot, and for my clients....much as I dislike it....some clients run older slower systems, I always push business grade machines, P4 with 512 megs or more....but unfortunately not all clients can afford minimum specs like that every year.

It's virus database I'd consider equal to KAV, it's trojan/malware detection is nipping at the heals of KAV.

NOD32 usually has at least a daily update, I've seen as many as 4 or 5 updates in one day.

So it's the performance impact that made me look more towards NOD32, it's very light, at the tradeoff of only slightly weaker trojan/malware detection....and it's closing that gap quickly.

So either one, depending on which things you look at more, but you'll be better off with either one compared to the OEMs installed on most home PCs. But the above are the points are what I looked at and made my decision on. People can make decisions based on their needs and go from there.

 

I am very interested in this topic. Sorry if it is repetative. I understand this topic is about version 5, but I would l;ike to mention version 6 (currently in beta). I very much like that version. It is lighter on resources than previous versions. I especially like the proactive defence. Also, when a virus is detected (in real-time) a small "popup" shows up in the bottom right-hand corner (a la mcafee). I like this better than NOD's approach. Are there any opinions on the beta vs nod. I might buy a licence for this one even thought I bought a nod licence a months and a half ago.

 

In av-comparatives.org's "May 2005" test, Kaspersky scored a total of "48%".

NOD32 scored "70%".

This was a test for heuristics using 0-day viruses.

Kaspersky's database is great, but their heuristics is not as good as NOD32's.

I don't want to get involved in the debate, but I think they're both great AVs.

 

I suggest you try them out for yourself for a few weeks each and see which one you like.

To me NOD is best, to person x KAV is best

 

The best advice in this thread so far, i would be Mr. X btw.

shadowatcher

P.s. within 4 months, Kaspersky 2006 will arrive and it will have a new Proactive Defense module in addtion to the heuristics already there and a lighter footprint, exactly the things that a Nod entusiast will be saying Kaspersky lacks right now.

P.s. #2. As a Pro user you will be able to upgrade for the remainder of your license to Kaspersky Internet Security 2006 which will include AV, FW, Antispy, antispam, and 1 or 2 things i can't remember right now. Hust thought it would be worth mentioning.

 

What I would want to know in such a question is which AV has the best detection rate. I realize that some have a problem with the amount of resources that a particular AV requires. However, if that is not a problem, it seems that one can argue endlessly about various reasons why one is better than others, but for me all I want to know is what is the best protection, meaning highest detection rate, and then the ability to correct/remove the malware.

I also realize that some AV are not compatible with some systems, but barring that Best concerns protection.
I use BD 9, and have no problems with it. In Firrefighters tests it has a better detection than NOD. In one test NOD creamed all others.
It is my opinion from reading tests that KAV has consistently the best detection rate, and the best for trojans also.

I think if I left BD I would go with KAV.

Jerry

 

The "Prove it" issue also turned around and can be said AT you. But that's another whole topic which would end up being pages long and boring people do death, because most of us realize some sites hold one as better than the other, while other sites hold yet another as better. And most of those all vary in how they test them, and what they're testing...blah blah blah.../yawn/

 

Having an older computer a light foot print was important and faster scan times as well so I choose NOD. But to answer your question I don't think one is better than the other. It's like comparing BMW to Mercedes. Use the one that's easiest on your eyes.

 

I've been periodically running KAV 2006 beta on my secondary partition for a few months and at least on my machine it is noticeably lighter than KAV WS 5.0. Still not quite NOD32 light to me, but the gap certainly seems much smaller.

To me, this is where it starts to get interesting. I do await the final commercial release. Not sure if I'd switch from my current setup, but I think it is much improved over the various version 5.0 KAV flavors and the potential consolidation of a number of functionalities under one umbrella is attractive to me if done well, I realize that is the kicker here and personal preferences can push the dynamic either way. The potential downside, depending on implementation details, is a greater chance of compatibility issues with other security applications. That's a clear consequence of this direction, although irrelevant for those embracing the suite.

Slightly OT: By the way Don, is there an articulated upgrade path for us KAV WS users? Same as Personal, same as Pro, or does WS continue as a distinct variant?

Blue

 

About a year or so ago people were asking if mcafee 8.0 was better than kaspersky!! again i say no with nod!!. Whilst nod32 has the best heuristic engine of them all, Which i feel is over rated, heuristic scanning is second to signature scanning thats just common sence. nod makes a good second scanner to kav but thats about it. Recently i tested kav and nod32 against $15 u/d trojans beast,cybernetics and darkmoon kav was the only programe to detect them tds-3 found nothing what a surprise lol nod also found nothing, nods lack of trojan detection is well known. With kav i dont need to run tds-3 with only nod installed i would also need a trojan scanner.I must admit im a kav fan i remember kav being the first to detect hidden streams lol i also remember kav being the only anti virus /trojan that could remove prorat 1.8 it detected that trojan 2 days after it came out norton nod etc took over 2 weeks to detect the prorat download server. People think much has changed based on a few tests by some websites do they have a vested intrest?? nod is the new kid on the block with its heuristic "what nots" as mcafee was 2 yeas ago KAV IS STILL KING megasecurity a well know trojan arcive they use kav to test submited trojans its very easy to find new trojans listed on that site that nod32 and kav doesn't detect so its easy to find trojans that beat them both from my testing kasper scores much better than nod32 nothing is perfect but kasper is the best allrounder nod32 scores so bad with new trojans its next to useless as a trojan scanner try it kav is not just a antivirus defence like nod its a full anti trojan defence like tds3 is ment to be lol! but from my experience kav is better than both. The type of malware i can find looking in naughty places is the most likely type im going to encounter adversly so self testing makes alot of sence to me. also found it really easy to avoid detection with nod32 by simply converting servers to vbs and then back to exe again kav and mcafee was the best for detecting hex edited and modified servers running nod32 alone is a risk get a trojan scanner if you insist on using nod32!!

 

All,
While these questions generate discussion and learning. I also advise doing a thread search first. Limit your search to a few key words and do not go back to far in time as things change and you need fresh info.

Just a thought.

 

How fast does KAV 6 scan compared to NOD on your machine?

 

Yes. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010804/food.asp

Acadia

 

Now there is some truely useful information that will help all no matter what AV you use.

 

I'm traveling at the moment, so I can't take a peek at the scan logs and in fact I don't recall if I have performed a complete head-to-head system scan.

On casual observation, NOD32 remains faster. My comments reflect webpage load and refresh characteristics, and the speed of file intensive applications - for example the speed that WindowWasher operates at. I'm very reluctant to get too quantitative with an early beta. The final product will be different, and it could be faster or slower than the present beta release.

Blue