Quick Heal Antivirus - Worth Looking At

I thought the members would like to take a look at Quick Heal Antivirus. I've been testing numerous antivirus software out and found this one to be a surprise from the standpoint of detection rate....features.....and ease of use. The following is just a few remarks from my evaluation of this software.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Interface:
Your main interface is layed out very nicely...user friendly........easy to understand for the novice and sensible for the advance user. One important feature that I'm impressed with is your Quick Heal Messenger. Unlike other antivirus softwares that will send you a update or alert messages via email, you have incorp this function within your software
------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAN ENGINE:
I ran a complete scan of my C Drive which took appox 1-1/2 hours to complete. Now I must say that was the longest scan that I've seen to date!...HOWEVER.......it did a complete .....leaving no stones unturned
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOURCES:
Quick Heal from this standpoint had the lowest consumption of resources.....lower than Nod32...or Solo...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If any of the members are interested here is their web site, you can download a evaluation version...give it a try I feel your'll be surprised.
http://www.quickheal.com/default.htm

 

I agree but detection rate needs to be improved (much).



Technodrome

 

I tried Quickheal some time ago. First I was surprised by the black screen appearing with "Good Evening user" and stuff. I don't know, it seemed very strange to me. I don't like av's booting before windows.It doesn't use too many system resources, has some nice facilities but I read some tests&saw it's detection is not very good.

 

Gentlemen:
I appreciate your replys on this antivirus software however I've run independent tests against this software and it passed 100%. Now I know what your going to say go to http://www.virusbtn.com/index.xml
which I know everyone has and uses this as gospel. But I'm not convinced with their report completley. I've ran the test in a sandbox enviroment and some of the toughest virus's against it and it detected it with no problem. As for the reply on the black screen...when you boot up the software checkss your files in DOS to make sure there is no infection. All I'm saying is try it out.....this is not a pitch for any software as I do testing and evaluating on antivirus software for a hobby. Nod32 is a great example for a outstanding antivirus I'm sure you'll agree......however in order to really test and evaluate you must try it yourself. I don't reply completley on reports I try it first hand to see if its worht it or not......
Thanks again fellows for your comments appreciate it have a good weekend.

 

You have given me no reason to believe I should trust your test results over any of the numerous professional testing sites around the world. None of them seem to think that Quick Heal is so wonderful.
I think that there are several AV's that people should check out when looking for a new AV. A good way to get an idea of which ones to consider is to do a little homework and check out the results on as many of the AV testing sites as possible. Also, by going to various Forums such as this one, people can get an idea of how many people seem to like a certain product.
Some people, and I am included, like to test virus detection on their own machine and that helps to see how a program will perform on your machine. It does not give one any idea of how many viruses it will detect and unless you do a lot of work, you will not know how many unpackers it has and how well they work.
I do not use Virus Bulletin as a bible, nor any other one test facility. I use as many as I can find. I appreciate what you are saying, but you are coming across like a salesman. One thing to remember when telling people they really should test it for themselves - most people don't have the knowledge, the virus database, nor the inclination to "test" for themselves. I know I can only do minimal testing on my own.
That is why I have to seek out several places to get information on security products before I decide which ones to look at on my own machine.
And I hope your weekend is going well.

 

I don't know about your tests but this AV needs much better engine then the current one. This one is very poor and it will recognize only common viruses or Trojans.

Heuristic part is very poor too, gives too many FPs but no possible virus warnings (when tested)...



tECHNODROME

 

I agree with OP its worth looking at, yes I looked many times already and my eyes are getting tired of QuickHeal !

Even in India it is NOT the top AV so that tells you about its home market. AV is a worldwide biz, they need to compete with KAV, NOD32,Fprot, Drweb etc & also get consistent repeated results in VB & other tests to inspire any sane IT guy to recommend it. I'm still waiting since last 4 years & I saw NO improvement in this AV from India.

eScan -also from an Indian Co uses KAV engine ---far superior to QuickHeal anyday.

Lastly: QH is only for WIndows, no Linux/other OS versions available unlike KAV, Nod32, Fprot.

Just my opinion <g>
SKA

 

But then again I draw your attention to this little appreciated fact: ORIGINAL KAV beats all KAV OEM'd products including F-Secure - I never could understand this -single "engine" KAV beats all "multi-engine" AVs I saw so far !!!!!

Again just my opinion !!!
SKA

 

Hi tsa,

While I completely agree that there is a need to test things yourself on products such as these, I think that the benefit of these self-tests are to gauge the overall useability of the product and the compatibility with programs that you use, as no independent testers can adequately assess this. However, I have to agree with root regarding tests of effectiveness. The various test groups have a very wide range of resources that they can leverage to throw into their tests and yes, sometimes you will find a group that has their own agenda, so you have to weigh one professional test against the others; but, really, I think you should relegate the efficiency testing to the professionals.

Regards,

Dan

 

I agree that many av tests are at least doubtful, with one tests' results contradicting the other's results.(For example Virusbtn. and Av-Test). But at Quickheal things are clear, both these two tests and other tests say pretty much the same thing: Quickheal almost perfectly detects simple viruses while missing lots of complex viruses, polymorphics and most trojans.

 

@SKA

Is this really only your _opinion_, or do you have _facts_ for that... (e.g. test results)?
What do you particularly mean with "beats all"?

 

Well since everyone is getting involved about antivirus software. Here is a review by the professionals on Nod32. This is one of the top antivirus softwares out. You can review this and form your own opinion. My point being theres pros and cons on every software. here's the review by CNET
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Editors' note:

On 5/6/02, we updated our review to more accurately reflect this app's virus-catching performance. For details, please see our corrections page.

NOD32 aspires to be an affordable, full-featured antivirus utility, and it succeeds to a certain degree. However, an overly complicated interface, some half-baked features, and its mixed results in our Labs' tests keep it from our recommended list. Stick with Norton AntiVirus 2002, our Editors' Choice, or our underdog champion, Norman Virus Control 5.0.
A troika of desktop icons
We'd prefer to have an integrated interface in NOD32; it's confusing to search through its many mini applications, not to mention the space they take up in the system tray. When you install NOD32, it places three different icons in the system tray: Amon, which performs on-the-fly virus checking of the files you access; the NOD32 Control Center, which lets you schedule virus definition updates via the Internet; and the POP3 mail scanner, which checks incoming mail for viruses. As if that weren't enough, there's also a separate NOD32 application, launched from the Start menu, that scans the files on your hard drive for viruses.

The POP3 mail scanner checks incoming mail for viruses, but it doesn't block infected messages from your in-box. It just notifies you that it found a virus; you're left to delete the message on your own. The whole process gets annoying, actually, since the separate Amon antivirus monitor will, in many cases, pop up again when you select infected e-mail, but it still won't delete the virus. NOD32's convoluted method may protect you in the long run, but we prefer the Norton AntiVirus 2002 approach; Norton deletes viruses before they reach your in-box. Also disappointing: you must initiate virus scans manually because the software doesn't let you schedule scans.

Mixed lab results
Cosmetic issues aside, NOD32 failed to detect several viruses and virus simulations in our lab tests. For example, it couldn't even detect Kakworm-infected e-mail within a mailbox file when we manually scanned the entire file. Most antivirus software can at least detect a virus there, though most apps make you ferret out and delete the message, as McAfee VirusScan 6.0 does. NOD32 also failed to find simulated viruses in the Rosenthal test, which simulates viruslike activity in an attempt to check virus software's heuristics, or the ability to use general characteristics to catch new, unidentified viruses.

But NOD32's track record with the 200 or so circulating wild viruses tops the charts. In our tests, we also check how well an antivirus program handles the current viruses in the WildList as an indicator of a program's performance. And Virus Bulletin's 100% Award, handed out only to programs that spot every virus making the rounds, shows that NOD32 performs as well as Norton AntiVirus.

To test NOD32's disinfecting power, we infected a system with the Gibe worm. The Amon real-time monitor immediately found the virus running in system memory, deleted it, and removed Registry entries that would have launched the virus at start-up. However, NOD32 left a few virus-created files in the Windows directory and deleted them only after we ran a manual scan of the hard drive.

Limited tech support
NOD32 is reasonably priced at $39 for the first year for a single user and $27.50 for each year thereafter. NOD32 offers only e-mail support. The company's Web site offers information on the latest viruses as well as helpful FAQs and additional documentation in PDF format.

Despite its low cost, a clumsy interface and a mixed score in our Labs' tests sink this app. If you're looking for an antivirus underdog, look to F-Secure Anti-Virus Personal Edition, which caught all the viruses in our tests, or Norman Virus Control 5.0, which sports a much more polished interface
------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted this is a older review I've tried Nod32 newest version out and I'm not impressed to say the least. Theres a lot of hype about Nod32....however I feel there are better more sensible antivirus softwares out there.//// Solo Antivirus for one is great!!....Kasp Antivirus is great......
Have a great week members

 

CNET = Advertisement

No professionals there...



tECHNODROME

 

You are not impressed and thats OK, but tell us why. ?

>>Theres a lot of hype about Nod32.....<<

Is there...? Thanks for telling me this!



tECHNODROME

 

Ok Tech:
You asked me about the hype.....they do a good job as far as marking however.....thats their main objective sales!!! Here are users comments. Like I've said before everyone is out to make a buck thats just natural.....but Nod32 is not the best in my opnion here are the comments.
=======================================

"Don't buy it" mkymonkey on 18-Jun-2003 06:00:11 PM
I had been pleased with this software for a while before it became extremely slow. It took the system 3 seconds to open winmine. My PC is P4 2.4g with 512M RAM. At the time, I did not run anything else except winmine. When I made the nod32 only scan on file open and creation but not on excecution, the system speed increased noticeably.





"Don't waste your money on NOD32 antivirus!" Alisha S. on 08-May-2002 02:12:00 AM
In december of last year I bought NOD32 and wished I wouldn't have. I have it setup to virus scan my e-mail but it missed many viruses and let them in. I got infected even with it installed. It is not good protection so I went out and bought Norton antivirus and have been very pleased with it. This NOD program looks likes a game when you try to use it. I e-mail for some help and never got a reply. If you read their website they claim to win all kind of awards but I can tell you that it misses viruses because it missed the viruses that infected me. Norton detected them dead cold. I wasted $39 on NOD. Take my advice and get Norton instead, don't waste your hard earned money like I did.





"Do not buy NOD is not poorly developed" Waste my money on 07-May-2002 11:12:00 AM
I made a mistake and bought NOD32 and it was a total waste of my money. Sure the program is small and fast but that is because it does not detect all the viruses that Norton does. I believed all the hype about the "Virus Bulletin" 100% awards but found out that NOD32 is not regarded as a good product in ANY OTHER TEST! After I did some research I found that it is really ranked as a poor to average virus scanner in almost all other virus tests. So I wasted my money. I called their office one and was on hold with some receptionist for over 1 hour and then she hung up! CNET hit the nail on the head with a "6" rating. I would have rated it lower though because I have tried to use the software and contacted the non-existant company. CNET probably would have rated it lower if they just tried to get some support.





"Ibida?" Anonymous on 14-Sep-2002 12:22:00 AM
I really fell for the Nod32 snake oil campaign.. Removed Norton Internet Security (the new 2003 version will pass ALL the stealth tests and other tests from PCFlank...) and tried hard to use it.. I had nothing but problems.. The program would constantly freeze up my computer.. Technical support could not help me, and Symantec's support is admittedly better, more responsive, and faster.. Uninstalled Nod32, went back to NIS 2002, had no more haedaches, NO VIRUSES !! Who cares if NIS 2002 is bloatware, I have a newer system, and it works.. At least it's not snake oil! Nod charges $27 yearly for updates, virus definations, and upgrades.. Problem is.. they haven't updated their product in years, 'cause if they did, they would have had.. 1. outgoing email scans, 2. 1 icon instead of 3, 3. script blocking, 4. A much better, more informed website (have you seen their "encyclopedia"...) 5. Responsive tech support.. 6. Easier Pop3 scan configuration.. I am NOT renewing my subscription until and maybe if they "catch up" to the rest, because the above features are not THAT big of a deal to add, they certainly would not "bloat" their program, and they should have done it years ago.. I've been reading all the other comments and also NOD's various websites, and I have to agree with some of the "negative" commentators here.., especially the one who wrote that they should improve their program.. Yes, the scanner is fast, and yes, it is # 1 in detection. But I missed being able to "quarantee" files, and the other features..





"At least we are more civil..." Anonymous on 14-Sep-2002 02:22:00 PM
Thank you for being more civil this time.. I promise likewise.. I had a clean, reformatted hard drive, without Nortin installed.. I was running Nod for about 4 months okay, and then I just couldn't run a full scan.. After I tried to get tech support to help me, and I even used Becky's Forums, to no avail, THEN I switched! Uninstalled Nod and installed NIS 2002 After I visited Virus Bulletin and saw the good scores Symantec was getting..SInce then, no problems.. In summary, the Norton Registry entries couldn't have harmed NOD because NOD never saw them...Please re-read my first review.. I was also disapointed with their tech support, their website stinks, and is a "glorification site", especially when you visit the Australian site... No Value to the end user.. Hardly a virus encyclopedia.. I am not going to rewrite my review.. My sole purpose in submitting this review is that, as a former, disatisfied client, hoping they will improve the program (soon) I hope to bring the ratings down... Yup, that's it.. I don't believe the NOD-CNET site should have an 85% approval. Nothing personal, I assure you.. Please reread my review if you intend to personally attack me.. "Thank you very much.."





"CNET, don't you think this is getting out of hand?" Anonymous on 21-Sep-2002 11:52:00 PM
I am not too crazy about NOD32, but these posts here either suggest too many pro and anti NOD shills (Bitdefender?, give me a break!) or a couple of people with VERY strong feelings out there. I come here to get some opinions before I make a final decision and I have to scurry through mounds of shill comments and hate mail. Well, I won't be trying bullguard or butt - defender, so that tactic didn't work. I'll try NOD but I don't want to wind up begging support for help. Maybe I'll just stick to either Norton or Panda.





"Before you condemn, know what you're talking about" Former Noddie to Forever Noddie... on 23-Aug-2002 12:32:00 AM
Check out Norton Antivirus 2003.. I think you're an idiot who doesn't read well. I wrote on my first commentary, I TRIED TO make the program work, the scanner kept freezing my computer up mid way. Nod tech support and Becky's Forum's were useless.. You keep ignoring the fact that I really did try, down to the point of reformatting my whole computer and then only installing the OS and NOD, and it was freezing. Buddy, you're acting like a moron, simply because you can't acknowledge the fact that I am writing, over and over, Nod32 didn't work for me..Norton works fine, especially version 2003, yes, I did my research too.. For the aggravation Nod put me through, and the expense, I'll stick with Number 1...





"Current Norton User and Proud!" Anonymous on 22-Sep-2002 11:12:00 PM
On my wife's PC I tried this NOD32. What kind of a stupid name is that Her McAfee updates expired and we are looking for another antivirus to see if they are better than Norton. I heard about this NOD32 in usenet so I download it and gave is a whirl. It caused my wife's PC to lock up and after a reboot it started to work Ok so I'll just ignore that minor glitch. After 3 days I had received 150 viruses! This is after setting up the POP virus protection in NOD32! NOD32 offered me no virus protection like Norton does so we are going to switch her from McAfee to Norton ASAP.





"Company employee's put messages here!" Anonymous on 24-Sep-2002 02:12:00 AM
I've been thinking of buying NOD32 for our company and decided to watch this area to see what people are writing about it. It is obvious that some people from the company or people assocated with this NOD32 put messages here to sell there av software. What a disrespectable way to market your av software! I will stay far away from ***ANYTHING*** made by the ESET company. I will advise others to as well. I liked a few features of NOD32 but given this unethical way of marketing I will not consider it any longer.





"doesn't catch Handy virus" Garrett C. on 23-Feb-2003 05:32:00 AM
I thought this this was a decent program, very fast, and pretty easy to use. But after reading up a bit on it, I decided to check a cd I had which I know contains the Handy32.hllp virus (a Kazaa virus). Last month I was told that I gave this virus to my friend, so I dl'd Norton. It caught it in seconds. I couldn't afford Norton, so I dl'd this program. Anyway, I just scanned that disk, but it said it was clean. Now I should say that it caught another virus, MSVXD32, but that is not really good enough for me
=======================================
Tech I can fill 10 more pages on these comments on users of Mod32.....point is......they tell you only what they want you to know in order to sell......and let me say this.....every antivrius sofware marketing and sales are geared for the positive only thats their job....
to sell their product.

 

Respected Mr Anvil,

just my opinion means exactly that, yes ?

My opinion based on my tests for 4+ years evaluating AVP/KAV "OEMs" and they dont stand upto original AVP/KAV as far as DETECTION goes in my opinion due maybe to KAv's faster "daily" updates which may not be available instantly to OEM clients - there is a time lag which is to KAV's advantage.

Again just my opinion - no hardfacts as in printed independent published reviews so if you're spoiling for a fight, I am not interested, thank you !

Of course you could try them all out yourself and draw your own conclusions, no need to accept mine, but that is no
reason to "ridicule" my opinion, if that is what you are doing.

BTW, I just realised my post has nothing to do with OP's subject which now veered from QuickHeal to Anti NOD32,so my comment on KAV is indeed offtopic here.

SKA

 

Perhaps we should keep this discussion ontrack, and keep it about Quickheal?

TSR, a couple of things.

First of all, I am a KAV user, and have no vested interest in defending NOD32. So, there's your disclaimer.....

You contradict yourself: in an earlier post in this thread, you say "Nod32 is a great example for a outstanding antivirus I'm sure you'll agree," and then go on to say that you don't rely on others to make up your mind for you. So, presumably, you've tested the AV yourself and found it to be "outstanding." You then produce a whole bunch of user comments from CNET as proof that NOD32 isn't as good as it claims to be, and you now seem to be agreeing with them.

First contradiction: you contradict your claim about NOD32's capabilities since it's first outstanding to you, and lousy later on in the thread. Secondly, you intially claim that your statements about AVs are based on personal testing rather than research gathering, and make a claim about NOD's greatness based on that. Then you contradict yourself by saying NOD is crap, and your proof is entirely based on other people's opinion? So, which is which? Do you or do you not personally test stuff? And is your opinion about NOD32 that it's a good or a bad AV? Either way you choose to answer, you're caught between two bald-faced self-contradictions. Let's see you get out of this one.

Secondly, you post a lot of user comments about NOD32's aggressive and dubious/unethical marketing. Well, let me ask you this: is it more ethical of websites like CNET to act as corporate whores for whoever brings in the advertising dough? When have you seen a CNET AV review that DIDN'T list Norton as the "winner"? And how often?

Lastly, have you not noticed that almost all of the negativity in those user comments about NOD32 has said users recommend an alternative AV product? And on a Norton pimping website like CNET, it comes as no surprise that virtually ALL of the recommendations boil down to Norton, and to a much lesser extent, McAfee. Do you not see something suspicious there at least as to the veracity of these "users"? Where do you think they're coming from?

No one is asking you to put all your eggs in one AV basket like Virus Bulletin. I certainly don't since I would have to choose Bit Defender or Norman VC over Kaspersky based on the last VB100% awards. When hell freezes over, maybe! But what people are saying is that while there are inconsistencies in test results for some products, all professional testing so far points pretty conclusively to Quick Heal's poor performance across the board.

You certainly put all your eggs in one basket....all your "evidence" against NOD32 came from a CNET review and CNET user comments. Please.........now tell me you're not an interested party.....

 

@SKA

What's up, why're you so aggressive?
I didn't mean to offend you: you just made a claim about something without giving any facts or explanation - and I just asked for facts or explanation... so where's the problem?

Anyway, you now gave me what I asked for: you say, KAV updates more often than its derivates.
Hm, but is this true in _all_ cases...?
- Gdata's AVK (KAV and RAV engine) offers daily KAV updates, too, in its "Premium support" edition (which is expensive, though)
- F-Secure also has (at least) daily updates, but it's usually not the KAV engine, which is updated so often, but F-Prot engine.

Test results (av-test.org, virusP, Rokop, Scheinsicherheit...) and my personal experience show, that these two derivates are usually equal or sometimes better in pure detection rate, compared to KAV.

But _if_ one of the derivates performs worse than KAV, then I agree with you: it should be due to slower/missing updates, because otherwise, it wouldn't be really understandable...

Ok, now back on-topic...

 

tsr:

I didn't know you had some much time to waste... As sakharg says, you contradict yourself...

As my final thought I'll just add that NOD32 is a thousand miles ahead of QuickHeal or Solo.!


Technodrome

 

Well this thread started out OK, but why it had to turn into (yet another) Nod32 bashing I'm not sure, CNets thoughts on any matter are to be taken with a pinch of salt and there will always be users of a product who are incapable of determining its abilities and features.

Before this thread gets locked I'd like to suggest to tsr that he/she try to read about,learn and audition some software themselves before quoting a third parties responses (and an unreliable one at that), its a better way to learn about a product and it also it may teach you to have an opinion of your own, a very valuable asset.



Kev


ps; heres a quote from one of your posted reviews; "Before you condemn, know what you're talking about"

 

Well said, Tinribs
Regards
Ole

 

Quick Heal Antivirus shill

Is your job to shill for Quick Heal by trashing better programs on public forums? You seem to do a lot of that.

I can think of no other reason why you would post a handful of the 13% negative NOD32 user comments while ignoring the 87% positive NOD32 user comments on the same CNET web site, but anyone who is tempted to believe this your trash should read the web pages starting from http://www.nod32.com.au/nod32/awards/cnet_zdnet.htm to learn the full story.

I'm an Australian missionary presently living in South America who spent the last 15 months in Myanmar and Thailand. Both of those countries are hotbeds of pirated software and the viruses that accompany it, and consequently a good 75% of all e-mails carry viruses. NOD32 stopped literally hundreds of virus attacks in that time, so I don't think I'll be switchng to Quick Heal.

 

PS

The Dalai Lama's Government in Exile is based in Dharamsala, India, and its network is protected by NOD32, not by the local program Quick Heal.