AV-Comparatives: Performance Test - April 2021

+1 This is also my experience with WD. I have recently tried KIS, ESET and Emsisoft. All of them feel lighter than WD here.

 

They've always scored last for many months consecutively. I wouldn't let WD near any of my machines.

 

Judging from the charts on AV-Test.org,
WD has less impact, than KIS.

 

You really even take those tests seriously? Dude AV-TESTS all AVs score 6/6 (or close at least) if they pay enough money which is the case in the latest tests

You know the results are a joke when GDATA scores 6/6 in performance, that thing is one of the heaviest AVs in the world.

 

My last paid AV was KIS about a year and a half ago. When I finally let WD replace it, I couldn't see any any visible difference in performance. It is possible that it may be slower on some machines, but it can happen with any AV, that's why trial periods are necessary.

 

If you look at the latest performance test from AV-Comparatives, you will see the opposite.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/performance-test-april-2021/
It's not that either test is wrong, it's just a good example of how much antivirus performance can vary from one computer to the next. As a result, the best test of how much an antivirus will affect performance is to install it on your own system and see how it performs. An antivirus which others find light, may cause noticeable slowdowns for you and vice versa.

 

I don't like that statement, I keep hearing it over and over again. WD is heavy on ANY system! and if it's heavy on my super fast laptops, all of em, it can'e be any lighter on any other machine. PERIOD. The tests prove it. If one says it's light on their machine and it's heavy on mine, then they probably don't even know how their machine performs without WD enabled and are just living in a bubble convincing themselves that its light because hey, it's free! Yeah so is Panda Cloud AV, so is Bitdefender Free AV, they are all night and day lighter than WD.

 

While I find it to be too heavy for my liking and as a result have never used it, there are plenty of people who are happy with its performance. They can't all be wrong.

 

That's blatantly false, there are many variables other than ram as to how a program will perform on any given computer. By you logic every software program will perform exactly the same on tens of millions of computers...really!! Your drinking the kool-aid. I know its not heavy on my 10 year old computer.

 

One of the reasons it took me a while to switch to MD was its impact on performance about 4 years ago, it was definitely heavier than Avira Pro. It is now as fast as Avira or KIS, I can be sure because I haven't changed my machine. Being free is an advantage, although I could certainly afford to pay for any AV if there was a good reason to do so.

 

RAM? Where did I say anything about RAM? I am one of those people who laugh at others when they judge how heavy or light and AV based on its RAM usage. et it use all the RAM it wants if it's gonna operate lighter. WD is heavy because of the way it scans files and because it will keep scanning files over and over again upon every access with no whitelisting feature for previously scanned files.

It's light on your 10 years old computer but heavy on my 2021 6000 USD laptop, yeah right. I wonder what in your imagination means light!

 

The real time protection doesn't scan files on every access. It does that for the first time after turning on the PC. It seems Defender does have some sort of cache, but they are completely gone when you shut down the system.
If you enter a folder full of exe files then Defender is very slow. It scans every file and also checks the hash with its cloud backend which makes this process really slow.
If you copy a large file then Defender doesn't slow down the speed by much but if you copy something that has many small files in it then the time it takes to copy is significantly higher.
But otherwise in day to day usage like launching common apps like browser, steam, office applications, browsing the web, etc are one of the fastest if not the fastest with Windows/Microsoft Defender. For an average user who usually just browse the web, do a bit of office works, play some games, Defender is plenty fast (Specially on a SSD).
So I think Defender is both heavy and light. It just depends on what the users do on their PC.

 

This is probably the best explanation of how Windows Defender works. Thank you.

 

Why the heck cannot they list the values aka the actual times, but instead just bars of signals like ur cellular connection on ur phone... And also only tested in default settings (that says nothing as if it can be configured to be faster with little downside, why not?), only on some old ****** machine. This test is so useless. They need to list the actual values and at least test on 3 diff machines (low spec, mid spec and high spec). Oh yeah and test compared to no AV, so we can see how much it delays.

 

I'm talking about my daily, regular usage, web pages open instantly as do folders. Now, uploading a large folder to One Drive takes some time, don't know if thats a Defender issue though. And I don't care as I only do that maybe 3 time a year. So Defender causes me zero issues for 99.5 % of my regular computer usage. Maybe you bought a faulty laptop.

 

Do a test and see how much defender delays your actions.

 

I don't find the numbers for either of those match up with my experience. I see too many 0% on those.

 

I don't need to do a test, as far as I'm concerned if I don't notice or see it then it doesn't exist. If if slows down something a few milliseconds who cares, its something that is unnoticeable.

 

Those who collect tons of exe files,
dual-use tools,
unsigned software,
exotic apps,
and self written things,
will see more warnings, than everage users.

Both WD and KIS are not made for developers and hobbyists.

 

We've never had problems with KIS and development. WD, Norton, Trend Micro, absolutely they will delete your files. It's always best to test and see what works for you. Depending on the machine it could be different products.

 

I'm sure WD slows down some peoples computers, I don't notice it on mine so I'm not going to go looking for it.

Same as most software programs, many say Malwarebytes is even worse than WD.

 

U can't notice 120hz on a 60hz monitor either, doesn't mean it won't feel much better when u have 120hz. If their test is right ( doubt ), you get 7% slowdown on launching an application. 9% on website. That's a lot. Imagine if it would load for 1 second. Now it would take 1.1111111 seconds instead, for 9% slower.

That's 0.1111111 seconds, for just 1 webpage! In video games if u get stunned for 0.1111 secs u can get chain cc-ed and die and then u lose the whole tournament for 10 million dollars and ur team blames u and calls u retard and u become a laughing stock and ur name becomes a joke around the entire world, ur life is in ruins and now u have to flip burgers in mcdonalds.

 

Hehe, good one

 

Good lord, thats 0.11 of a second, I guess in that time I could blink my eyes or something while waiting.

Its sort of what I'm saying , it would have to slow your computer down 50% for you even to notice it, and for the large majority that just doesn't happen.

 

Well do as u like, but for fast people with fast brains who can notice every single millisecond, it makes a difference.