Free vs Paid antivirus

found this article on softpedia on detection capabilities of Avira, MSE, Kaspersky, Avast and NOD32

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AntiVirus-Free-Vs-Paid-Detection-139005.shtml

 

Is this true? Since when NOD32 have a behavioral blocker
I though their strong point was heuristics, seems like NOT, at least in this test it was extremely BAD BAD

 

Interesting article. I'm sure there will be disagreements over it, just like any other test.

 

Just proves that if you have Avira free version combined with say Threatfire or Prevx (or any other behavior-based anti-malware) you're safe as hell. No need to invest money in paid versions of AVs.

And, wow, ESET surely sucked in that test, failing nearly 50% of the samples, and is by far the most expensive of the tested AVs.

 

Just wait for the dismissers of the test, lol. Of course I can kind of understand it considering Softpedia isn't exactly a major testing organization. To be honest, in my opinion any vendor that purposely gives their paid product better detection and cleanup than their free version, isn't a vendor I would even think of considering. By that I don't mean the extra features like script blocking and such. I mean detections and clean-up. A vendor is well within their right to keep "extras" for their paid customers, but they have absolutely no right to "dilute" their product in any other way. And you know what? Imho, that also includes the quickness of released detection updates.

On topic though, I'm happy to see Avast did pretty well.

 

I'm not an Eset user, but its results weren't fair as it was not tested properly. They admit it.

 

Softpedia's write-ups are great. Considering the amount of samples coming in each day, and reports from downloaders/users, they should be able to have a good batch of legitimate samples.

Edit - WhY diDn't NOD scOre thE BesT, thiS TEst is RiGgEd *%^&!!!!

 

I'll still keep using my NOD32 ESS great software

But still i never knew NOD32 had a BB as stated there

 

"....but it is not exactly so because NOD 32 relies quite heavily on behavioral detection, which means that malware content had to be executed for the application to pick it up, which we did for the samples that would initiate the infection procedure immediately."

Hmmm...seems to me that with the type of behavioral,is better to use A-squared real protection...and is not an excuse for NOD32,period.

 

I suppose ESET has seen its great days pass. It's more than 2x expensive as Avira and more expensive than Avast's paid version. It's even more expensive than KIS2010 and AVAST IS 2010 counted per user. I mean come on! Internet Security suites being cheaper than ESET's, at tops, mediocre detection/removal abilities? It makes me sick.

 

You all talk about desktop security there are a lot of security spaces and yes i use paid versions on servers if they are not unix based. Also i don't want to be the richest man in cemetary so what the hell i just like to support security softwares by paying them. What is wrong with that?

 

It's nothing wrong with that,Papillonn,if you want to pay for your security software,go ahead.That not mean that we,the users of the freeware,are cheap person,just.....more pragmatic.Because in the end,we are talking about the QUALITY of the software.And if you don't have that(and other qualities of an AV),then we should ask ourselves if it worth to pay for.....no quality,but payed..more quality,and free...what would you choose in the end?
And remember...most of the times you pay for the brand,not for the AV itself.
PS.I have licenses for G-Data,NOD32,Kaspersky,F-Secure...but i use a free AV.That's my choice after all and so and you.

 

I think people are being a little hateful to nod32's result, while I agree that its extremely expensive and not worth that price,

Nod32 detects a lot of the new samples I infect my machine with via HMP, so can't all be bad.

 

To be honest,my license for NOD32 is that i've won it here,at wilders(A BIG THANK YOU AGAIN!),and yet...i used it just for a couple of days,and....i'm not a NOD,or any AV hater,ok,because 2 years ago i bought NOD from a store and i payed 65 euro(and if i was buying it online,found out later,i would have payed around 40 euros)...if you ask me if was worth it,YES.I was very happy with it.But...(always a but..)...now...i simply don't like it anymore,it's just a matter of taste,after all...besides,NOD gave some minor problems that i didn't bother to report..and it doesn't give me much confidence...but maybe i'm a noobie,i'm not a security software savy...as i said,it's my call.These are my thoughts.
Sorry mods for this off topic.Please delete my posts if they are inappropriate.

 

I have a license for NOD32 and still chose to purchase Kaspersky. It has performed better for me and in this test, Kaspersky performed well as well.

 

free vs paid - useless discussion from my pov.
either i want to use freeware overall and grab the best out of it or
it is part of multiple test of all and i use at least the best of it,
paid or free. with my payment i push the further developement
of a great piece of software. vendors with freeware in their portfolio
make the most money with another software - which does not reduce
the free features sometimes.
for kaspersky and nod common users are essential for survive, for
comodo and avira not really - the big one comes with business users.

 

I agree totally with this.

 

What ever works for you keep it and zip it

 

The free a/v's would not exist if people were not paying for the paid versions! Would you like to go to work for free?? How about do 5 day's work for 4 days pay?
If you can't afford to pay for the program that's one thing, if you can you should. That's how development keeps moving forward, they need the $$ to develop.

Just my opinion, that's all!

 

not completely true, some vendors are getting their money from buisiness-sales whereas offering the same content for home users, for FREEEEEE.

so, its not completely 'working for free', just because you can afford to pay for a particular program, doesn't mean you have to.

I pay mine, but id have no worries installing Avast 5 or Panda Cloud AV etc and be happy without a firewall, as i use my Hardware one.

 

A few of the free choices are very attractive nowadays.
I've managed to amass a ton of pay licenses through giveaways, beta testing, etc. and most of them are just going to waste.

Basically whatever I feel is best, free or paid, is what I use and will continue to.
Suppose it all boils down, again, to what you feel works best for you (and your wallet).

 

I understand your point. But as I've said earlier in this thread; some AVs provide "only" decent protection and are too darn expensive compared to other vendor's AV. I don't care how they do it or how they afford to release their free AV (I just want to get protected). If there's a free AV which provide better protection than a paid AV, I'll pick that, for obvious reasons.

 

I've always thought it was a good idea to support the people that are helping to protect my computer from malware. Also, by paying for my AV software I give the company a stake in keeping me safe too. If I'm not a satisfied customer, they won't continue to get money from me. That's an incentive for them that doesn't exist with free AV software.

 

I don't know enough about testing methodology to properly critique the test results but someone will come along with another test where NOD does exceedingly well and then I'll listen to the complaints about how that test was flawed.