AV-Comparatives Performance Test - April 2018

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Spartan, May 9, 2018.

  1. waters

    waters Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Posts:
    958
    Well i have just removed Bitdefender and Windows Defender runs a whole lot lighter for me. Same with Kaspersky.
     
  2. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,316
    Location:
    Earth

    THanks.....trying Panda now!! seems nice! think ill keep
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2018
  3. shmu26

    shmu26 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2015
    Posts:
    1,472
    Testers say that Panda is not very effective against true zero-day samples.
     
  4. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,998
    That's right. But on the other hand, it's one of the lightest antiviruses there is, so is a very good option for those who have a slow computer, or don''t want an antivirus to slow their computer down.

    Just about every antivirus, slows down my computer. Panda is one of only a few, which doesn't.
     
  5. amico81

    amico81 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Posts:
    97
    Location:
    Germany
    Windows Defender is extremly slow if you open a folder with a lot of exe- Files :thumbd:
     
  6. The Seeker

    The Seeker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I installed Kaspersky Free after seeing this - it certainly is very light on system resources.
     
  7. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    can you elaborate please? what's so bad about it?
     
  8. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    +1, it makes my system crawl like a turtle
     
  9. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    I've been trying K7 Antivirus for the past 2 days and it's super light and has no FPs. Bought a 2 year license.
     
  10. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,748
  11. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,998
    I'm quite surprised by the high number. When I tested K7 last year, there were very few false positives.
     
  12. mekelek

    mekelek Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Posts:
    518
    Location:
    Hungary
    non-existant dynamic modules, weak / late own signatures
    it's like on the level of Bullguard.
     
  13. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,887
    Location:
    US
    Glad to see ESET performing as expected. I got one year license and I don't regret it.
     
  14. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,359
    That's true but I never open a folder with a lot of exe files. Browsing speed is ok, that's more important for me. :thumb:
     
  15. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,808
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    It amazes me how Performance seems to be the top priority category for so many.

    It also amazes me how a particular testing lab gets praise after praise, until it down-rates a fan favorite product, or highly rates a hated product, then suddenly that lab is on the take and can no longer be trusted. :rolleyes:

    There's a reason the fan-favorite ESET was down-rated by AV-Tests, it didn't score as well as others in the MOST important "Protection" category - just as it didn't score as well by AV-Compararatives as seen here. In fact, it was 3rd from the bottom! :(

    I am amazed at how much importance is put in these "simulated", "artificial", "synthetic real-world" tests in the first place. Now matter how much they claim to represent the real world, none of them do. They can't. They can only use their own interpretation of what they think real world is - no matter how well intentioned they are. This is why different labs rate different products differently.

    But that's a good thing. Do you buy a new power supply or new car or new refrigerator based on just one review?

    As for the criticisms about Windows Defender and folders with many .exe files in them, I don't see it. On this i5 6600 PC, my c:/Windows/System32 folder has 620 .exe files in it and it opens immediately. When I select the right-click option on any file and select Scan with Windows Defender, it is done immediately. However, if I select Scan with Malwarebytes on the same file, it takes many seconds.

    If yours "crawls to death", maybe you need to look at your hardware. Or perhaps other settings you dinked with. I just checked my 8 year old Toshiba notebook with a little i3-330M 2.13GHz processor, 8GB DDR3 1066MHz RAM and a slow 5400RPM hard drive. It has 531 .exe files in the System32 folder and it popped open with Windows Defender too.

    That said, these are rare tasks since there should rarely be a need to manually scan a file with a real-time scanner scanning everything on the way in. So again, it amazes me how "Performance" seems to mean so much to so many.

    Lastly, it should be pointed out that all (but one!) of those companies that make anti-malware products need to score well on those synthetic tests so they can use those scores to promote their products! So they all (but one!) code their products to perform well in those "synthetic" environments. Only one concentrates on the real real-world environment.

    And all (but one!) of those makers need malware to survive! In fact, they all (but one!) have the financial incentive for malware to thrive! If malware goes away, so does their business.

    Only one anti-malware product maker actually has a true incentive for malware to go away! They could stop wasting resources (with $0.00 returns on those investments) on the product. They would stop getting relentlessly blamed by the bashers for the security state the bad guys put us in and the security state the other products failed to keep us out of!

    Something to think about.

    That said, more important than the choice of anti-malware you use is the fact you use one, that you keep it and Windows updated, and your avoid risky behavior like being "click-happy" on unsolicited attachments, downloads, links and popups. You don't need to drive around in an Abrams tank to be safe. You just need a fairly recent, properly maintained and updated vehicle, and you need to drive defensively.
     
  16. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,748
    PDF, page 4 = Test methods.
    PDF. page 5 = Notes and comments / Old hardware.
    PDF, page 7 = Test cases (File copying / Archiving and unarchiving / Installing/uninstalling applications / Launching applications / Downloading files / Browsing Websites).

    http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/avc_per_201804_en.pdf
     
  17. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,808
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Yeah, so? You just proved my point. You put performance above everything else and that make no sense to me.

    Do you spend most of your time copying, archiving, unarchiving, downloading, installing, and uninstalling files and applications? I sure don't. I spend the vast majority of my time, by a HUGE margin launching applications, opening, editing and saving data files, and browsing websites. The anti-malware solution I use is rated "very fast" in all those categories. For sure, if it bogged my systems down with the tasks I do the vast majority of the time, that would be different. But not only does it not bog my systems down, it protects me as well. The rest is up to me, the user, and always weakest link in security to keep my systems current and to avoid being click-happy on every thing I see.
     
  18. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,748
    No I don't. It's a performance test therefore I comment the performance. In a Detection test I will comment the detection rates.

    Also=
     
  19. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,808
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Again, so? Note I said mine was rated "very fast" the highest score at "Browsing Websites" too.
     
  20. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,748
    I'm not referring to "mine" and "yours".
    I just point the test cases, all of them.
     
  21. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,808
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Okay. But then I don't understand your point of continually quoting me and then replying to those quotes. I was commenting on folks putting so much emphasis on "performance" when it is "protection" that really matters most.

    And when it comes to performance, it is (or should be, IMO) what most users do most of the time with their computers that should receive the most emphasis. That is, using their favorite applications (Word, Excel, games, etc.) and surfing the Internet - the tasks most users do most of the time. If the anti-malware solution does not bog down the system while performing those most commonly performed tasks, then performance issues at other times is much less significant, if significant at all.

    Now if you spend most of your time copying files, creating archives, unarchiving, downloading files, installing and uninstalling programs, then you should look for a solution that excels in those areas. But in that case (except for downloading files) I might suggest doing that off line. Then you can disable real-time scanning and not worry about performance impact.
     
  22. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    I got 0 FPs from it so far
     
  23. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    All AVs have good protection levels these days. So my choice goes to the one with the least performance imapct and Windows Defender is the heaviest. Period. I've tested them all. If you like it then good for you.


    And no I am not using a slow system as you commented above when I said it brings my system down to a crawl. Here are my laptop specs:

    MSI GT75 Titan 8RG-094 | i9-8950HK @ 4.8 GHz | Samsung M471A2K43CB1-CTD 2400 MHz 64GB DDR4 RAM | GeForce GTX 1080 | Dynaudio System with Nahimic 3 Sound Technology| Killer Wireless-AC 1550 | Chi Mei N173HHE-G32 17.3" FHD 120 Hz/3ms Screen (G-SYNC) | 3x 2TB Samsung 960 PRO [Super RAID4] + 4TB Samsung 850 EVO + Sandisk 512GB Extreme PRO SD Card | Windows 10 Pro
     
  24. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    3,808
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    I didn't say a slow system, I said you may need to look at your hardware, or settings. Having lots of horsepower does not mean it is configured properly, or running properly. As I noted, my very conservative i3 laptop has no bogging down problems when opening folders with lots of .exe file, opening large docs in Word, or surfing the Internet. Frankly, with that i9 with 64GB of RAM and SSDs in a RAID, I am surprised anything can bog it down.
     
  25. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,042
    Location:
    Dubai
    hmm, to be fair, this test that I ran was on a fresh Windows install with no drivers installed yet and that made me not want to even try it thinking if my system is so slow to the point where the icons in the folder load one by one in slow motion, then I'm not even gonna bother. But you telling me it's running fast on slower laptop makes me wanna re-visit things although AV-Comparatives testing results don't make me very enthusiastic about the results but let's see.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.