2013 Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks

www.passmark.com/benchmark-reports/

Edition 3 was released recently, adding products and a newer version of the Norton products (previously, Beta versions were listed).

 

Fits in the context:
http://www.amtso.org/amtso---download---amtso-performance-guidelines.html
"Measures of the time taken to install solutions, the size of installers and installed packages, counts of new registry keys created and so on are of some technical interest to specialists, but present little value to the general reader. Similarly aspects such as user interface launch speed, and general reaction time of the interface, which may seem significant to testers who interact with products in an unusual way, are of minor interest to most users who will spend little time interacting with their security solutions."

http://eugene.kaspersky.com/2011/09/30/benchmarking-without-weightings-like-a-burger-without-a-bun/

http://eugene.kaspersky.com/2013/01/24/all-mouth-no-trouser/

 

Symantec Corporation funded the production of this report and supplied some of the test scripts used for the tests.

 

very nice find. appreciate sharing it

 

After he adjusts how the test is weighted, Kaspersky wins. What a surprise!

 

Now someone should create a "2013 Consumer Security Products Usability Benchmarks" study. Including "warts and all" with the new release glitches of each product.

 

im sorry but there is NO WAY this test is real world. there is no way in hell that kaspersky is as light as they are showing not a chance.

 

I've been using Norton IS 2013 for about 2-3 weeks and its been the lightest security suite I've tested recently for accessing multiple files and web browsing. It is on par with Webroot Secure Anywhere performance wise.

In regards to the test figures I always thought Trend Micro was heavier than BitDefender. Kaspersky's figures are about right though.

The most important factor for me in a security suite is performance speed followed by the software's protective abilities. It is rare to get infected by malware as long as you don't download files from suspicious websites.

 

i sell both and no way is nis the same as wsa performance wise. nis is def pretty light and FAR lighter than say kaspersky but there is nothing out there as light as wsa. again im not being biased since we do sell both to clients.

 

I wonder why Symantec Corporation didn't add Webroot SecureAnywhere to the list for this test?

TH

 

For what it's worth I've seen WSA with 96% CPU use.

It may have only been a temporary glitch - I unstalled it soon after to try out another AV.

 

What testing sites have run tests on WSA? I'm curious to see the results.

 

Heres one from AV-Test

 

AV-Comparatives have tested it and it was tested in the 2012 Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks by PassMark.

Edit: And Webroot SecureAnywhere vs. Traditional Anti-virus, September 2011 by PassMark.

 

Edition 4 adds results for Webroot, ESET, Trend Micro, AVG and SOURCENEXT products.

 

Cause they would have been behind by 1 more rank

 

Doesn't surprise me that Webroot cleans up in these tests.

 

Thanks for the update.
Well no surprise really that Webroot is showing off like that, but a bit disappointed/weird to see ESET's performance as I find both ESET and Webroot equal in system performance on my 9 year old PC running XP