AV-test.org for Windows 8.1 April

ESET always got low scores for performance in this test. I believe that bad results come from two use cases: downloading software and copying data. ESET is a little slower when it operates with unknown executable files (at least that's my experience). If they downloaded hundreds of executables or copied them from external media they could get slow performance results. IMO this is not "real life usage scenario" for average user. People usually don't manipulate with large collection of executable files on daily basis.

 

Well done Avast.

 

May 26th, 2014:

AVAST forum offline due to attack
The AVAST forum is currently offline and will remain so for a brief period. It was hacked over this past weekend and user nicknames, user names, email addresses and hashed (one-way encrypted) passwords were compromised.
..
This issue only affects our community-support forum. Less than 0.2% of our 200 million users were affected No payment, license, or financial systems or other data was compromised.
..
http://blog.avast.com/2014/05/26/avast-forum-offline-due-to-attack/
--------------
200 million x 0,2%= 400.000 users...........

 

I think you are right. During normal use Eset runs super smooth on my machine.

 

I agree with this assessment, it's not a real-world test. Which is probably why software like PandaCloud scored low, they were forcing a cloud-response on a system, and were measuring performance with that cloud response poll waiting in the queue. Since Eset also does this for unknowns (Threatsense), that may account for that as well.

 

I never had issues with avira. Im using the latest beta and never encountered any boot performance issues. Boot time remains the same no matter weather I use eset or avira.

The only issue i have is the web pages not loading properly in the latest beta.

Otherwise you are right, eset's score in performance should be similar to avira's, although i had massive performance issues in arma 3 caused by eset smart security.

 

Start-up should play a minor role as normally you don't boot every 5 minutes.. May be twice a day maximum? Otherwise best to use the sleep mode. More important is the impact during use that may have a larger effect on performance.

 

And its only on windows 8 & avira, no boot issues on windows 7

I have tested avira two weeks ago and had no issues on windows 7

 

I'm using 8.1 and have no issues whatsoever.

 

McAfee with high score in all categories... thats new :S

 

I think it is caused by Advanced heuristics and the powerful emulator, but in real life scenario almost nothing beats Eset speed.

 

I really don't understand what is happening with avast!. I've already taken it off one system for Bitdefender free. If this continues, I will remove it from the others as well. I only wish Qihoo 360 did not require admin rites when starting. Any on demand scan on a User account fails. If they solve that problem, then all my computers would have it.

 

I turned down Threatsense to default, I had it cranked to maximum. Now it feels even speedier. Probably wise not to tweak those from default for on-access stuff eh?

 

Also ESET's USB activities are pretty lousy, often causing system slowdowns when a USB is inserted/removed, or even accessed. I was forced to disable this aspect due to incessant issues with USB drives filled with files. If they did any testing with USB stuff - which I assume they did - then I would blame it on that. I found it unacceptable.

 

Yeah, it isn't a good idea, default settings in v7 are optimal in my opinion.

I see that you really like Adguard (it's awesome), how it's doing with Eset? Does it necessary to disable HTTP scanner?

 

I still see nothing wrong with it. I've installed it in 10s of systems and to be really honest with you, I have not cleaned any of those from malware yet. I see from the logs that avast! has blocked some strange sites occasionally + some Filerepmetagen/Evo-gen detections. From what I've seen it works and I'm going to continue recommending/using it if that does not change drastically.

Tho, I can say it's not that good with adware installers. ESET is top notch in that area as far as I can tell(y)!

 

ESET works perfectly with Adguard. I'm on the Adguard test team, and can assure you it's been fully compatibility tested with ESET. There was an issue with Kaspersky, but that was resolved by activating the WFP network driver within Adguard.

But yes. I do find Eset's default settings to be ideal, and not a good idea to toy with them as system stability and slowdowns seem to result from too aggressive of settings. You DO NOT want DNA scan on every on-access file, it will slow things down in my experience. Not much, but there is a drag - however slight, and apparently it's not worth it. DNA is best for on-demand scanning from what I see.

 

Hi Osaban,

I noticed from your signature that you swapped to Avira Antivirus Suite from the Free version. How would you compare them both versions in terms of lightness?

 

I agree and yes, sleep mode is the way to go

 

Hi Mac,
I've always used the paid version of Avira for 8 years so far, occasionally I installed the free version on other machines, and the last time that I used the free version was about 2-3 years ago, therefore I can't give you any feedback. Even with the paid version I used to disable the web guard as it was slowing down browsing, nowadays the only thing I disable is the firewall and mail modules as I don't need them, speed isn't affected at all by Avira.

 

Agree with LargerX but most of these tests were done in march-april where avast was recovering from the outage they had...I see 1 point improvement in win7 and win8 test.So hopefully in upcoming tests we will see them coming back to track!

 

Thank you Osaban,

I was curious when you mentioned the Microsoft (Win 8.1) native Windows Defender and how Avira is even lighter than the former. Lately my old low-spec test laptop couldn't cope with the newest versions of most AV's out there so I ended using the MS default one for weeks. Then I did read your comment and now I have installed the latest beta v.14.0.5.370 (now called Avira Antivirus Pro) just to bear out what you said and yes, let me say I am greatly impressed with it. Lightest than ever, a revamped UI, the best malware "catcher", new technologies, no toolbars, no ads ....no hassles! I definitely will be extending my subscription with them

 

-When I click on Performance, Kaspersky is on the top of the list.
-When I click on Protection, Avira is on the top of the list.

So, what is more important? Performance or Protection?

 

I would choose for performance and then protection

 

I'd say performance in my case. Why? Because I have safe browsing habits and the protection differences between the top suites are sooo small that you can get good perfomance AND protection at the same time.