KAV is better than Antivir ?

As for the brief scan times for KAV as opposed to avira, I would never use ISwift, IChecker, etc. and I think it great that stuff like that is not in avira. It took avira about 40 minutes to scan my computer. I never did a full scan with KAV. I knew it would take forever. But there are many things that are great about KAV...it is only the problem with Chkdsk that scares the heck out of me...if that didn't exist, I would still be using it. Someone mentioned the great Kaspersky support forum and I have to agree that is the best antivirus support forum I have had the honor to be a part of. It is outstanding. In that regard, avira has the worst support forum I have encountered as many of you probably are aware from posts here and at dslr regarding my unsuccessful attempts to get registered and activated there.

 

KAV provides all types of anti-virus protection: antivirus scanners, monitors, behavior blockers and integrity checkers for me. I prefer it for scanning fast.

 

What is better? Kaspersky of course. I have no doubt.

Firstly we should keep in mind that AntiVir is newbie in a perfect detection rate, and we have no incontestable proofs that it is stable. Probably it will keep its score, and may be not. Kaspersky quite the contrary has stable perfect results for a long time. It was so for all times as far as I remember. It is checked up by time. Therefore kaspersky has very reliable and stable defense.

Regarding proactive detection I would like notice that kaspersky has better score in this issue. If we acquire a av-comparatives tests results we can see that kaspersky has 99% effectiveness (using proactive detection module) and AntiVir only 53 % (using its superior heuristic). Don’t write that is very difficult to use kaspersky behavior analyzer. I will not agree. It’s a very simple if use basic variant.

What can I say about speed? Use ISwift/iChecker technology and you can see the difference. No comments any more.


Kaspersky also has additional advantages including:

1. Additional instant protection from rootkits.
2. Proactive detection from keyloggers, hidden data sending, private data and passwords access, blocking automatic dial up programs.
3. Roll backing of changes made by malicious programs on your computer.
4. Scanning email traffic for viruses according to the protocol via which it is sent (POP3, IMAP and NNTP.)
5. Scanning of Internet traffic via HTTP scanner. It allow to prevent your browsers from HTML exploits.
6. Scanning of data transferred via secure (SSL) connections (including web and E-Mail traffic0)

 

malcan and C.S.J
I think I am advanced user and I dont need any AV because I can detect viruses miself, in other words I know how to stay clean on internet,I use today nod32, because it's super light(not Dr.Web) and I am afread to be infected while my familis members are using my machine. I tested many AV's during long time, I often catch viruses on internet and submit them to AV companys. So with my experience today #1 AV in the world is Antivir premium edition! not because I like that product, because it's fact!

sorry for my english

 

Actually in the real world, most would rank them:
1. Nod
2.Antivir
3.Kav, which will improve more this year.

And the gap between 1 and 3, is smaller then the gap in my teeth. They are all good. So Kav is just as good as Antivir, in answer to the question.

 

You should consider that users have different experience.

 

Is it your own real world?

Perhaps in some cases.

 

Hi dah145.

You are absolutely right.
I agree with you.

 

yeah sure, if you say so it must be right, lets all go to the #1 AV available.

"i am an advanced user i dont need an AV, i can detect viruses myself"

sorry, but you sound arrogant and a little funny too.

thank you, i needed a pick-me-up today

 

Little funny is when you think Antivir isn't #1 AV in the world today..

 

"Better" can be a subjective thing. If you're talking about detection capabilities, KAV and AntiVir are separated by fractions of percentage points as of this posting. Both companies obviously are going to continue to push for excellence.

In short,

Per Avira, this company's AV came on like gangbusters in 2006. I used to laugh at "Luke Filewalker". With detection rates at over 99%, I'd rather be 'with the force'.

Kaspersky's AV products are the ones that malware writers fear. Just ask one! A reputation built on detection and elimination. Their detection rates are and have been phenomenal for a very long time.

Which is better? OK, AntiVir for those less technically inclined, KAV for das geeks.

 

yes it is funny, like i said, if you say so... it MUST BE TRUE!

the thing i find funny is how you soooo judge an AV just on detection alone?

KAV is wayyy better than avira, a few .points on percentage detection makes it better, i do not think so.
KAV's engine will and will be for quite a while, be the benchmark for everyone else, avira is just a player with a slightly, and yes.. very slightly higher detection, and if you look at the software, no gimmicks for kaspersky, flawed piece of crap for avira, the quality you get with kaspersky is fantastic whereas avira is far from it, but sure if you talk of detection alonem avira wins (by points of a pecent)

 

I judge not only on detection.

 

ok, to keep on topic of this thread,

what is your argument to say Antivir is #1 in the world and better than KAV?

 

Thread #8

 

ok, but points 3. and 4. are not valid

the detection rates are less than a percent better, and kaspersky have a much better heuristics coming, plus they have the proactive defense.

what about these points:

1. update problems
2. mail scanning problems
3. slow scanning of single-file viruses
4. even icon problems?
5. and now, a few get windows security problems when un-installed

 

1,2,3,4,5 are not valid

 

Yes, hehe.

Best? You are dreaming, avira heuristic is a factory for false positives mass, only leads to paranoia, not useful.

Hahaha, not true..

Not true too.

1. Gdata (BitDefender+KAV)
2. Nod32
3. BitDefender/AntiVir/DrWeb

 

LoL

 

New G-Data = KAV+avast!
I am nod32 user and I know Antivir detect more viruses and AVIRA add new viruses much faster to signatures than ESET.

 

Avast is in the higher midfield, not bad, but not top, but probably better then norton

That´s not essential, essential is the scan quality and reliability concerning advanced heuristics, not a factory of false positives. I saw nearly that many false positives using avira like drweb.

 

well that have been awhile ago because in the last round at AV Comparitives, Avira was rated as few in that area.

 

tsilo,
I'm curious as to why you mentioned twice that you use NOD32 but claim that Avira is the # 1 AV in the world.
So how come you dont use Avira?

 

systemjunkie, i wouldnt enter this argument.. he think avira is #1 and is word is final.

all AV's have FP's, some more than others, if you think dr.web is terrible in this, i think you have been mis-informed, as vb or icsa labs cant be earned with them.... but what matters, is are the company trying to fix them or not, in dr.webs case, they are so kudos to them.

and as you said systemjunkie, avira has not been shy to show FP's either, all of them do, apart from Norton, dont they have a 99% detection rate aswell as ZERO fp's, maybe he should go there.

but to say dr.web has many fp's and his only source of this is virustotal is absolutely funny, sure no 1 is denying there are false positives, but there are with avira, and im sure they try to fix them, nothing is perfect.

avira was poor in the first 2006 av test for FP's then much better in the latter test of 2006, but still .. even though its supposed to be better, people still get quite a few FP's, as like i said.. it happens, and you can only hope your AV vendor fixes them.

 

I agree, all can get FPs just based on your own PC and whatever software you have on it. So that first intial scan is the most tricky. When you add new software, no matter what your AV is, it may again find some FPs.

Bottom line it is what it is and you have to find that area you are comfortable with and just let it remain that way. Of course unless you are using Nod.