Norton vs Bitdefender

Which is better based on detection rates and memory usage how much memory does bitdefender use? just focus the discussion only on the two avs, thanks.

 

Hi yodafan,

Norton (NAV) is better in detection rate, but BitDefender have much better heuristics and is much faster to release signatures and on last months they release a lot of new signature that could improve a lot its detection...

About resources, BitDefender use less than NAV, but I don't how much it use...

Between NAV and BitDefender, I will choose BitDefender...

Regards

 

If I may add on I agree 100% with VaMPiRiC_CRoW I have used Norton as well as Bitdefender for a extensive amount of time and have found BD to consume less resources than Norton. Norton seems to be more bloated software than BD. BD heuristics detection for me would be the deciding factor as this would be the most important aspect of a antivirus. Hope this helps

 

BitDefender is very nice... It's quite nice on recources, I notice no slowdowns and memory usage is around ~18mb wich is nice (I use the Standard).

Only negative side it's incompatible with some software espesially with defraggers. But it's promised to be better in version 9 to be released after summer.

 

I used Noton for at least 5 years. It performed well, and I never had an infection.
I am now using BD, and it has not let me down. Norton got bloated and so I left it.

I am pleased with BD, and would recommend it over Norton.

Jerry

 

BitDefender is cheaper, has good detection and very good heuristics as well as excellent updates. So I recommend BitDefender.

 

BitDefender hands down. Cant wait for the new version

Regards,

snowboard

 

hey got a question i notice norton has a better detection rate based on AV comparatives last on demand scanner test, even has a 15% trojan difference... where norton miss 2 and BD miss 7. I know BD been add a lot of signitures and it has a better heuristics...but can't really tell how BD compares with signitures now, but as far as heuristics for new malware based on whats on the wild would there be that much of a difference in results, in other words would there be a big percentage gap like 15% and would the heuristic have caught 5 more out of the 7 where it only miss 2 trojans like symantec?... i know BD isn't an AT but there were other parts that BD didn't catch as much as norton or more, if i remember each part or the other categories it performed less efficient..but again BD is getting alot better lately and will be coming out with a new version and can't really tell till it comes out and new tests.

 

I will admit that bitdefender is getting better but then again norton is getting better all the time also.

 

i guess what i'm saying is like the difference between kav and nod, one better right now at signatures the other is better in heuristics, but yet kav does better in on demand test. For Retrospective/ProActive Test in heuristics they use future malware, i think its hard to say how much of a difference there is.... cause that be excluding how AV have current updates all the time. Think heuristics is a good way going about it but at the current time i don't think its good enough. Is heuristics really better at the current time (now) than signatures AVs?

 

Yodafan, you asked that question at the WRONG forum. About 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people around here all hate NAV with a passion! And you'll never get truly fair opinion on NAV at this forum. I would ask the same question at Dslreports they seem to have a more balanced opinion of the different AV products.

 

You are a bit off in your statistics, There are actually a few well informed people here that realize that norton antivirus 2005 is a pretty good antivirus program.

 

Ok Bigc, maybe your right. It should be about 98% of all people around here hate NAV with a passion.

 

I can't comment on detection rates. All I know is from AV tests such as AV-Comparative and the like. As far a resourses go, it must depend on individual computers. I ran BitDefender 8 Standard on my machine and it slowed it down quite a bit. I'm now running NAV 2005, and there is no slow down what so ever. I know lots of people call NAV a resourse hog, but I haven't noticed that with NAV 2005.

They both have trial versions. Give them a try and see which one you like better.

 

I can see wrong forum does have a point, i mean norton has been a pretty consistant AV but has never been on the wilders AV list yet trend micro is? =T

 

Trend Micro is on my comp now. It works very very well

 

i'm just saying norton is better than trend micro based on av comparatives stats and wonder why norton wasn't in its place or place in the AV section...anyways back to the topic about detection...

 

If you remove the resources used by Norton...

 

I don't know what other people are doing wrong but With Nav 2005 I didn't see the large resource usage some others talk about. It actually runs very light and fast on my XPSp2 box.

 

I have seen Norton Antivirus 2006 in action. It's gonna be an interesting summer ineed

 

Hi RejZoR. Can I take it from your comment that NAV 2006 has made some nice improvements? Could you please comment on some of the things in NAV 2006 that caught your interest.

 

Here is a screenshot... but you can see more screenshots and NAV 2006 info here.

 

and heres one more...

 

Thanks hbkh for the screenshots and the link.

 

Spyware is finally detected On-Access (in NAV2005 only On-Demand grrrr),they lowered memory usage,but there is still quiet large number of processes.
But since they don't use that much resources it's much better.
Interface is pretty much the same as in NAV2005,but thy have added a new tray icon (yes,now you have 2 of them) that is for Norton Security Center.
But again,they cvannot be merged/split like in avast!.
Norton Security Center takes around 4 extra processes (each one uses around 400-500KB of memory,but anyway),so my idea is that this Security Center should be optional since many of use don't need it.
On-Demand scanning speed was quiet fast even in VirtualPC.
But i can't comment anything about heuristics/packers and their improvement.