KAV is better than Antivir ?

the only av that people can be quite safe of FP's, is Norton 2007.

---------
EDIT:

id like to add that in the last test by AV-COMPARATIVES that dr.web found 10 fp's by signature, the rest were heuristically detected with "probably infected with...." (thats 80% heuristically detected FP's) and as it says "probably infected..." gives the user the choice what to do with it, whether its sending for analysis or just locking the file, you dont have to delete it.

and if you read the reports on av-comp, the graphs look very pretty for the top tier ones, maybe if they also did a scan speed test on infected files, aswell as a clean-set of files those graphs would change, and both graphs would give an overall view of the scanning speed.

 

Without any AV I can stay protected I don't have problems with viruses.
I use nod32 because it's fastest AV and don't affect my system.
Oh yes, I have it for my family members..when they use my computer , but when I tried Antivir I noticed it have better detection and Avira is very good to add unknow viruses in signatures.

 

but the test you talk of...

Avira has better detection than nod32
Avira has faster scan than nod32
Avira has better heuristics than nod32

so with all the #1 best in the world nonsense, why you using NOD32?

---------------------------
i think thats what he meant to ask you.

 

I have nod32 license, so I use it..
It runs very good on my system.

 

interesting thread......
bitdefender and nod32 havew the best heristics on the market and as far as im aware arent plaqued by fp's
antivir has fixed most of the fp's and dont have so many now thou.
I got kaspersky because of its rep and the fact that its feared by the bad guys. ive heard the bad guys use it to protect themselfs from the other bad guys

antivir has got less than one percent better detection than kav on one test big deal. kaspersky has beat it and other av's in tons of other tests and in real life.
if you want an av without fp's go for kav,nod32,bitdefender or norton.
they have the lowest fp's
lodore

 

It is 'kinda interesting. We argue about fractions of a percentage in detection rates, and 99.5% is so much better than 99.1%.

It might be interesting to discuss, but not very practicable, since folks who use
AVs that show less than 90% detection rates seem not to get infected. I often say that I know many who use AVG free, and never have a problem updating, computer crashing, or get infected. It seems that they experience fewer problems than the ones we argue are the best. That must be worth something when choosing an AV.

But we do have fun arguing the tenths don't we?

Best,
Jerry

 

I agree totally with all you posted

 

i agree with it as well hence why i got kis6.0
lodore

 

Not really correct, there have been tests (albeit less reliable) over the last year or so, in which AntiVir threatens KAV's position. Here are a couple of examples:-

http://overclockers.com/articles1260/

http://nepenthes.mwcollect.org/stats:scannertest

AntiVir is surprisingly good at feretting out spyware laden trojans, especially for a freebie (which does not cover Adware/spyware as such but does nobble the trojans that carry the installers).

Just at the moment, KAV, despite its ferocious sig release rate, is having a bit of trouble keeping up with polymorphic malware like zhlob, which mutates so fast it can slip past KAV. Probably it is true that AntiVir's heuristics will catch more of these things. Having said all that I use KAV 'cos I still feel slightly safer with it overall - but things can change!

 

and isnt protection what it is all about.

 

thats why kav/kis6.0 has pdm and soon the improved heristics will come in to help stop 0 day attacks.
@topperID do you use outpost firewall along side kav?
since i think i have read some of your posts at the outpost forums i think tell me if im wrong
lodore

 

It indeed is most impressive that in terms of virus/trojan detection free Avira Antivir Classic is on the top.
Avira is a quite small company also.

 

It must be someone else because I have never even visited the Outpost forum!

Actually I use ZAP and, based on performance, I have no plans to change at present.

The problem is everything is becoming a 'suite' these days - KAV, ZA, Counterspy, AVG - all of them are going down that route, so it could become harder to pick and choose and mix and match in the future, due to possible conflicts. I don't like that trend!

 

Small in size, Big on ideas.

 

Za 7.0 suite now uses the Kaspersky engine.....................thought i'd mention it now that you indicated you like your ZA FW and are a Kaspersky user too.

 

woops i remembered after i saw your posts in the ewido forum on wilders silly me
lodore

 

I have tested both on a set of infected samples and on a set of clean files. The result is that Avira is having too much false alarms.
On the other hand, AFAIK, KAV has one of the best emulators on the market and so it will have a better proactive detection than Avira. There are a few Antivurs programs that can be compared with KAV, but Avira ain't one of them.

 

And I guess the next question would be, "Can you please explain your testing critique."

 

Yes

IMHO of course

 

In reference to posts #24, 25, and 26. When comparing AntiVir and KAV when it comes to which loads faster at boot up, in my experience, it's very close. The only time I've notice a difference is when I turn my computer on for the first time for the day. KAV loads very quickly, but it updates right at first, so that takes a little time. But to me that is no big deal. I like the idea that KAV is loading those updates as soon as it's loaded on the computer.

As for full system scans, I've found that KAV scans 160,000+ files in about the same time AntiVir scans 132,000+ files.

Of course I know this is how KAV and AntiVir perform on my computer. Things are different on different computers.

 

greystoke, the amount of files cant be judged upon as each AV counts them all different

 

C.S.J........True. No argument here. I was just using the amount of files scanned in reference to which AV takes longer to do a full system scan. The time KAV takes to scan those number of files is about equal to the time AntiVir takes to scan a lesser number of files, on my computer anyway. Just trying to make a point that KAV is not slow when it comes to scanning ones computer.

 

You know what is bad, is that we have been debating this all day. WHO CARES. They are both good.

 

Agreed.

 

This will not help advance the conversation but...both are very good but I prefer Antivir.