Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by imuade, May 24, 2017.
Slower launch of standard software applications .. +109%. Ouch!
Times sure has changed since I used NOD32 2.7 lol
I strongly doubt that launching popular applications would be noticeable with ESET installed. The initial scan run after installation also computes hashes of executables which are subsequently used to determine the reputation of files. Whitelisted (popular) applications and system files are excluded from further scanning. I, for one, would bet that you would not notice any difference in terms of performance between v2 and v10.
Glad to see Windows 10 used with AV-Test.
Thats my experience with ESET, almost no system impact because of the efficient reputation cache.
That's the beauty of these tests, I don't have to personally try them out. The numbers are there.
So you are saying that Marcos is wrong and thats ESET is that heavy on system impact?
In those tests ESET is one of the lightest:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/performance-tests/ ( Performance-Test October 2016/ last version)
http://www.passmark.com/benchmark-reports/ (Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks 2017 edition 2/ last version)
I personally trust my experience much more than those tests, for example Trend Micro is the heaviest security solution that I ever used while in AV TEST is considered very light.
Ps: Passmark tests are very good, dependable methodology.
Hmm AVG looking not so bad. Anyone here a user by chance?
I am using AVG on one of my machines and I find it to be very effective, light and more stable than Avast.
i bought a 2 year license and it is very fast in everything. Light on system browsing and i think it has improved a lot in protection also according to the tests i have seen. It is very impressing to me
Right on thanks guys.
I'm saying the numbers are there and that's what people are going to base their purchase on. Feel free to disagree.
Nothing new, the usual every 6-month.
I wonder if they have tested Windows Defender with SmartScreen enable or disable... this was a huge topic regarding MRG tests
Antivirus performance tests are close to being meaningless in my experience. The problem with them, is that the performance of an antivirus can vary greatly from one computer to the next. An antivirus which causes performance issues on a test computer may actually run very well on your own computer.
To give some examples. I tested over 60 different antiviruses at the end of last year/start of this year, and NOD32 was one of the very few antiviruses with an absolute minimum system impact. While ESET Internet Security was tested by AV-Test and didn't do so well, the system impact should be pretty close to NOD32. I actually have found v10 of ESET's product to be much lighter on my own computers than v2.7, which was too heavy for my liking (but it did run really well on some other computers).
K7 Total Security, also only got a four star performance rating, but once again on the computers I've tested it on, it is has been one of the lightest antiviruses there is currently. It's system impact is so minimal, I considered buying a license a few months back.
Trend's Internet Security did very well in the performance testing, as it usually does. However, I find Trend products to cause very noticable slowdowns at time. When I come across a customer's computer running Trend, I usually uninstall it and replace it with something lighter.
Avira also did very well in the test. But I find to be too heavy, as it likes to run multiple scans at once.
I'm currently using Panda Global Protection as my antivirus. While it was not tested in this test, it usually does not do very well in performance tests. However, I have found it to be one of the lightest antiviruses there is.
Roger, I agree that performance can vary on different machines depending on what else is installed and other factors, therefore tests may give an indication but they are by all means not conclusive. Testing an AV on a particular system remains the only way to gauge its impact on performance.
I'll have to disagree about calling Avira heavy when it performs multiple scans. These are only started in the presence of multiple issues of malware, circumstances that are very critical to a system and therefore demand more resources. Performance tests such as the one at AV-Test.org are about system impact during normal computer operations such as launching, copying, downloading, etc...
I have Avira on fast laptops Asus and Samsung, and it is definitely faster than MS Windows Defender...
I did experience very noticable slowdowns when it was running multiple scans at once. I'm sure the system impact will be accepetable when it's not running scans.
On my system I have some PUPs installed, as well as installers for PUPs in my download folders, which is the reason for Avira detecting potential threats and running the scans. However, I can't think of any other antivirus which will runs multiple scans at the same time. Webroot SecureAnywhere, will run a second scan after detecting malware. However, it only runs one scan at a time.
They all disable it, MRG is the only one considering re-enabling it.
I sent AV-Test an e-mail in regards to this. If and when I get a reply, I will post same in this thread.
The reply from AV-Test.
Separate names with a comma.