How do u compare these two free HIPS. I need comments by their users. Actually for few weeks I am running EQS v 3.4 and NG beta build 302 together. Though it,s mainly for fun and not for security. For security either one will be enough although EQS has a lot more features that NG but NG on the other hand has some very nice features like detection of worm behavior( making copy of itself), detection of posting message into windows, posting data into windows, diffferenciation between global hooks and hooks into a single process, quarantine feature, deleting files rapidly, overwriting executables, reading text files rapidly, reading windows address book, outbound FW, inheriting permissions for executables created by Restricted applicatioons like ur browsers. etc. It,s alos easier to use. So for anybody who want less popups and less " headache". I will recommend NG. On the other hand if some body is paranoid and want to control every thing of the system and is ready to make exaustive rules, he should go with EQS. A big adavntage of EQS is complex child parent rules, different profiles that can be changed via hotkeys and a full File protection feature. I am really impressed with NG. It ahs a very nice GUI( popups and tray icon falshing). It has many thing that make it a user friendly HIPS. U can put ur trusted applications in trusted group so no more popups about them, no conflicts. U can secure ur security appliances by single click in the rules, at the same time avoiding unnecessary termination popups for other processes that need not to be secured, U can put ur browsers in Restrricted group with a rather strict rule set and it will work as a policy based sandbox giving very few popups. This is actually a very neat feature( Comodo FW version 3 has a similar function that is more comprehensive but more complex at the same time). This way actually NG has three policies with different rule sets( optionally). !- Trusted policy- no interception/ retrictions. It is for applications marked trusted by user like security applications and windows system executables- no popups, no conflicts. 2- Restricted- policy for applications marked restricted by the user like web brwosers and other internet applications etc. U can tighten the default rules sets for this policy and avoid unnecessary pop ups. 3- Default policy for all other applications- Here also u can change default rules as u wish. Main drawback for NG is that there are no complex parent child rules( like ProcessGuard) but NG,s protection is far better than PG. Absence of complex rules is though an adavantage for new users. It makes NG user friendly to them. NG lacks some filters like system shut down protection, protection against changing system time etc People complain that it has no separate Registry defence module but I have really found its registry protection better than EQS. It protects against common malware registry attacks that EQS can,t inspite of that it has a full registry defence( like protection of disabling RegEdit, TAskMAnager, Deleting Folder options, Deleting important windows services: EQS faileed in all these while NG passed here on my system, I used XPKiller and Brontok worm plus some other malware). Some main advantages of EQs at the moment are a full File defence module and defence against SSDT unhookers. I ahve given some suggestions top Arman and if he like them and implements them, I hope NG will have a fiule protection feature that will give a good security at the same time giving no annoying popusp like EQSecure,s file defence system. SSDT unhookers might be dealt in the mean time( ATM I tried two SSDT unhookers anf NG dealt with them nicely). ATM in my opinion NG is far better than PG, PS free and SSM free. Arman has also intention to make it Vista compatible in future( it might take time though). Actually I was running 5 security appliactiions before: Antivir, SSM free, ThreatFire( CyberHawk), Comodo FW and GesWall. I removed four of them namely Antivir guard( service changed to manual), Comodo FW, SSM free and ThreatFire. Now I am running EQS, GW and NG( why not to consider NG as a FW in my set up rather than a HIPS as I have no outbound FW). At times I turn off EQS. So basically I am using two/ three applications in real time GW and EQS &/or NG. Antivir is on-demand. Ofcourse I use ShadowSurfer when I test malware against these HIPS. An interseting note. I remmoved ThreatFire as I found it very much like NG with more user friendly( though less descriptive and sometimes ambigious) popups and a default blacklist. To me TF is nothing more than a HIPS like NG but it,s better for ordinary users. A word of caution, NG has still some install problems, also i noted a conflict with Comodo firewall version 2 and I got a couple of BSODs, some are fixed by Arman and some to be fixed in next build.