Which are better out of: ZoneAlarm Pro vs. Comodo and ZoneAlarm free vs. Comodo. Which have better protection? Which have less slowdown?
That's like asking who is meaner, Alien or Predator. What I can tell you is that ZA free does not do well on leak tests, if that is what worries you. Pro does quite well. Both Comodo 2.4 and 3 are excellent on leak tests. On my system, ZA Pro uses more cpu resources than Comodo 2.4. I have found Comodo 3.0 to be too difficult to use. The HIPS is too active. Of the choices, I like Comodo 2.4 the best. I used it for several months.
Hello it depends on what you intend to. Personnaly, I'm currently using ZAPro 7.0.462 but I deactivated antispyware and AV check. Only firewall and program controls are activated. I like ZA pro because : -> Great flexibility regarding rules -> Smart defense, if you are not expert, using a wide database, is able to automatically setup your firewall rules for each of known application -> You can personnalize anu rules -> Network management is OK and also for wifi WAN -> Password protection is essential -> Configuration files import/export in XML format is really essential -> Program is stable and there are no upgrades every 2 days with regressions or new bugs !!! That's very important ! From business point of view : ZA free is free but limited edition of Zapro, e.g. the same CORE component, and there is a real customer support... Regarding Comodo, comodo is providing security and certification. They are not specialized in firewalling... They expect new customers for their products for sale, with their free firewall... Which is, at first look, a good idea, but there are no support manpower, no support for free gifts... So, do what you think... I choose Checkpoint (even speaking zafree that is safer than comodo, even leak test quotation is lower...)
Can't answer these question based on available information. Your other posts dealt with Nod32 and Vista, is that the rest of your configuration? Have you trial run any of these FW's? Read the learning threads? Which Comodo do you mean? V3 or V2? What kind of security do you need? are you concerned about outbound packets? are you a high risk surfer? gamer? On line banker? Purchase daily using credit cards? But when the question is "better" it is too subjective and has a possibility of just generating a thread of my FW is "better" than your FW which IMO is a waste of time. Sorry.
For my other security programs, I have NOD32 version 3.0 as my antivirus and Spyware Doctor as my antispyware. I have Vista 32-bit. I just tried Comodo version 3, and the lag is horrible. I am a gamer, and I want to protect login passwords.
I would be careful then with ZAPRO and NOD3. I have seen reports that they conflict... https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=199325 May be in VISTA is different... don't know. Cheers, Fax
That's simply not true. Egemen, one of the Comodo's creators is a firewall expert. I trust both to Egemen and Melih, so far they haven't let me down, so nither has CFP 3.0 or 2.4.
Please, don't be misleading, I'm also using ZA Pro 7.0.462.000 But, how do you know that either ZA Pro and ZA free are more secure than Comodo Firewall Pro 3.0?
Proof here. http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php
I think the OP is referring to the overall rating of the firewall not just leak tests.... Unfortunately there is no recent test but you can have a look at this overall assessment at Matousec: http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/results.php Cheers, Fax
That is old news Fax. ZA hasn't been 6.0 version for awhile. If you look at the most recent tests the version for ZA are 7.0 and Comodo 2.4. What you read was info from last year or so.
Yes, old... did I say just released? ... However you cannot judge a firewall only on based on leak test results. So supporting your point using that link is simply misleading. Cheers, Fax
Well according to Matousec Comodo is better then ZAP and ZA Free. Thats my point. Now with Comodo 3.0 with its D+ the scores will be even higher.
Again better in LEAKTESTS. Does not mean better as firewall overall. I am not saying it may be not, just pointing out that leaks test are just one factor amongst many others to judge a firewall. We had this discussion many times and still many of us mix up the performances of a firewall with how well it scores in leaktest... two very different things. But I guess we are going off topic here Cheers, Fax
Leaktests are like imaginary diseases; a cure the pharmaceutical companies have so an ailment is invented to require the remedy.
They are both very good firewalls. You should try them both and use the one that you feel more comfortable with. The best security tool can be easily transformed in the worst if the user makes the wrong choises. Other good and free firewalls are Online Armor free and Pctools. (Kerio and Jetico 1 are not updated any more but you can try them too). Panagiotis
I went patiently through the whole gamut of Comodo 3 development trial versions - until I just lost patience. I never doubted the protection offered by either Comodo 2.4 or later versions of Comodo 3. I find that Online Armor offers excellent protection, excellent compatability, low 'noise', very good ease-of-use and great support. Just a better product overall for my purposes. I trialed the free version, trialed the paid version and bought the license for the current final version for the added features of the licensed product. I think the OA Firewall/HIPS is a superior product overall. I run it with NOD32 v2.7, SAS paid version with real-time protection enabled and Firefox browser. I'm pleased with the combo. So true.
Well I tried the latest version of OA and there is alot more pop ups then Comodo and ZA. I cant even launch a screen saver without a pop up. I cant install drivers without a million pop ups. Browsing slows down also. The program are not listed by icons only names. I disabled Web Shield and no help. All three ZA,Comodo and OA are great firewalls but I feel safest with Comodo.
