AVG Free V AVG Pro (paid)

I've noticed with AVG you will get two sides of the story with this AV product. Some will say its rubbish and some will swear by it and infact I've heard people say its better than NOD32, also its probably the most popular free AV software out there today on the market, and again I've heard that people have said that the free version of Avast is better than that of AVG.

So my Q here is:

1. Is there much of a diff between the free and pro paid version.
2. Is there a diff re their detection rates.
3. Does the paid/pro version offer faster scanning.
4. Does the paid version offer better heuristics.
5. Does the pro version offer better detection and if so by how much.

 

AVG is definetly not better than NOD32 in detection rates. I suggest you to watch the new av-comparatives.org test from August.

from grisoft.com

 

http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivirussoftwarereviews/a/freeav.htm

Read the AVG review here for some background info and a comparison with Avast and Antivir. Also look at the results on AV-Comparatives http://www.av-comparatives.org/

I would suggest that there are better free AV programs and there are also better paid for but read the results at AV Comparatives and the reviews above then let us know what you think is best for you.

AVG is the most popular free AV but then I can think of a lot of popular things which aren't the best.

Fairy

 

1.There is much more extensive scheduling features for updating (you can update multiple times) testing etc.Pro offers "scan potentially unwanted programes " feature for adware /spyware etc.
2.Only in "scan potentially unwanted programes".The free doesnt have this.
3.Not that im aware of.
4.Not that im aware of.
5.Only for potentially unwanted programes.
The pro also use priority servers so no delays in updating 9though this hasnt been a problem for the free in a long time anyway)
The pro also has 24/7 email support which is very good in my experience.

In independent tests AVG is usually classed as standard ,whereas nod ,antivir,kaspersky and a few others advanced.It most certainly isnt rubbish,and i personally dont feel unprotected using it as part of layered security.If its just detection you want,and frequency of updates then kaspersky would win hands down in my opinion.

 

I think the major differences between AVG Free and AVG Pro are...

1. You can configure AVG Pro to automatically check/update every 1 hour with hi-speed servers
2. AVG Pro has more configuations, e.g. Advaned User Interface, exclusion list on real-time/ondemand scanner, user scheduled tasks
3. AVG Pro can detect adware, spyware and other unwanted software

I like AVG, it's probably the lightest antivirus I've ever seen.


About AVG and AV-Comparatives.org, I've found some comments from AVG developer about AVG's results.

" oh THAT "test". Well, I am sorry to say that this test is really not a reliable source of information. And not because we are not performing well in it but because of the methodology and bad test set. Their test set contains "samples" such a batch file that says "I was here" only, does nothing else at all and they claim it to be a virus! Or various corrupt files. The problem is that either we can add this crap and slow down scanning and increase definition file by several hundred kB or we can choose to ignore them and do what we believe is best for our users. So far their methodology is so bad that we chose the second option.

But you can of course say that I am very biased. And I really am. I met Andreas Clementi (a single student who is doing all these test by himself) several times and tried to explain to him how incorrect and unacceptable the methodology, he agreed that there might be mistakes and problems - but keeps doing and publishing the same. That's all I can say about THIS test. I prefer other tests that are performed by test labs with sufficient resources and renome - and respect their results even if they are not always good for us. But at least I know that they test it properly. And FYI - test such as ICSA and West Coast Labs test for Zoo malware, too. One of the differencies is that what they have in their zoo collection are real viruses that can replicate - not a single corrupt sample or 'funny' batch file."

http://forum.grisoft.cz/freeforum/read.php?8,69641,page=3,backpage=,sv=

 

hmmm, I wonder if Grisoft add the missed samples that AV-Comparatives send to them after the test? Be interesting to run a current and up-to-date AVG on a sample used in an old AV-Comparative test to see if they have improved their detection of these 'corrupt' samples.

 

Even though that may be one of the developers points of view ,grisoft still allow test of thier AV at av comparatives for the world to see,so they are not exactly hiding anything.Again if detection/and adding frequency of updates of an av is THE paramount factor for using an av ,then theres only one winner (imo) which i mentioned earlier.I wonder how many here actually started off with AVG or innoculate it....never had an infection ,but changed avs to the "better ones"anyway,because they became "more knowledgable" from security forums such as this.I must admit i am one of them.

 

That's what I've been wondered too. I think Grisoft must has been doing something right with its products, it seems that its AVG Antivirus is getting more and more aggressively popular even there're many competitors in the market, not only because of it has the free version (we can say there're better free antivirus than AVG Free).

ํ

 

Since West Coast Labs was brought up. Didn't AVG fail the Level 2 Test which I believe is for Virus removal capabilities? I'm not asking this to be nasty as I used and liked AVG Free in the past. It's just that the effectiveness of how well an Antivirus can remove a Virus would seem to be important as well, correct?

 

Yes thats true....and is a valid comment

......................................................
West Coast Labs has a virus library with many thousands of different viruses and varients, collected through a bespoke harvesting process. For a product to be certified Anti-Virus Checkmark, Level Two the product must comply with Anti-Virus Checkmark, Level One and, in addition, disinfect all viruses on the "in the wild" list which are capable of disinfection.

Disinfection means:
That the virus is (or is substantially) removed from the infected object and the object is usable; the application/program should not hang or crash the machine, the machine should boot up correctly, the document should so far as possible be restored to its former uninfected state without loss of data.

"In the Wild" means:
Viruses in the wild are currently defined as those that appear on The Wildlist Organisation's "In the Wild" list and which have been reported in the wild by more that one person.
..................................

.....Though even if/when they achieve that ,i think most will judge it primaraily on detection figures anyway.

 

I think for such question, it would be better to ask Grisoft tech support, it's better than what we guess.

BTW, I think there're a few real viruses (file intector) in the WildList today, so how many ITW virus the AV can really disinfect (by West Coast Labs definition)? since most of other ITW malware are worms, trojans that cannot be disinfected, only delete their objects from infected system.

 

I admit that I am not technically capable of arguing the validity and methodology of the various tests. I happen to trust AVC.

Here is another test site that one might examine.
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72

It is usually the case that when a product does not show up well in a test, that the methodology is attacked. In spite of that, I remain convinced that the AVs fall generally in the order that AVC and virus group results indicate.

I must add that most people I personally know who do not use either Norton or McAfee use AVG free. All are safe surfers, and none has had an infection that I am aware of. All are satisfied with AVG free, but none has ever heard of most of the other AVs that are available and discussed here.

I have loaded Avast on a couple and they are also pleased without infection.

Best,
Jerry