• 0

ESET antivirus or smart security?


Question

So I'm switching my current antivirus/Internet security.

I want ESET but which is better? ESET antivirus or smart security since it comes with a firewall and some other goodies.

Antivirus is $39.99 a year or $59.99 usd a year.

Smart Security is $59.99 a year or $89.99 for two.

Also are there any hidden coupons anywhere?

It's for windows 8.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Well, for 8 and above I'm not sure, and if you factor in the hardware spec of your pc as well as any budget concerns, I'd go with the suite, for the all in one UI, (makes life a little easier, I use Zonealarm, but that's personal preference and in no way am I trying to change your mind, I just prefer one solution wherever possible)

 

But if you have a budget, then I'd recommend the antivirus and either a third party firewall from a reputable source, or windows firewall, and a couple of other programs to supplement it, (personally I have spybot search and destroy, registry mechanic and Kaspersky tssd killer, just in case, but haven't had to use them more than once a month, just to make sure my system's ok)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Well, for 8 and above I'm not sure, and if you factor in the hardware spec of your pc as well as any budget concerns, I'd go with the suite, for the all in one UI, (makes life a little easier, I use Zonealarm, but that's personal preference and in no way am I trying to change your mind, I just prefer one solution wherever possible)

But if you have a budget, then I'd recommend the antivirus and either a third party firewall from a reputable source, or windows firewall, and a couple of other programs to supplement it, (personally I have spybot search and destroy, registry mechanic and Kaspersky tssd killer, just in case, but haven't had to use them more than once a month, just to make sure my system's ok)

I could always buy the smart security for the year then later on this year buy the 2 year license.

I tried KAV. I didn't like it with the trials. Mcafee, just didn't catch some things. ESET seems to be what works best.

Does ESET smart security do anti spyware?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

If you are worried about malware I would look at doing a combination, Eset AV and Malwarebytes premium. Just a shame Malwarebytes is now subscription based.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I would just get the antivirus and pair it with the Windows Firewall. Also if you are behind a router, it may have a firewall too.

Is the windows one better then the one included with ESET?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

If you are worried about malware I would look at doing a combination, Eset AV and Malwarebytes premium. Just a shame Malwarebytes is now subscription based.

Malwarebytes still has the free version, it's just not real-time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I'll just go with the antivirus.  I read a comparison between both on their website. Seems smarter just to buy theirs for 2 years at $59.  I can always try the Windows 8 firewall and if I need more use a free one like comodo.

 

 

I'm going to install malwarebytes again and CCleaner (i forgot about those!) 

 

 

Now if only I could do a fresh install of Windows 8.  My reinstall media would reinstall everything that came with it, bloat and all.  

 

So I guess I'll be picking up a Windows 8.1 package and eset.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

????

Malwarebytes still has the free version, it's just not real-time.

What he/she is saying is that before you only had to pay once (lifetime subscription) for Malwarebytes Pro. Now they moved to a yearly subscription.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

neither . I only use windows defender.  I don't download obscure stuff of surf questionable websites. i don't open emails/spam from ppl i don't know. have not been infected in 12 years. with the way i use the interwebs it is pointless and a waste of money to pay for antivirus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Neither, Avast and Malwarebytes. Can't beat the combination. If you're behind a router you don't need a firewall, most routers have a NAT firewall which will stop any attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

What he/she is saying is that before you only had to pay once (lifetime subscription) for Malwarebytes Pro. Now they moved to a yearly subscription.

oh wow, didn't even notice that... I think its a good thing though that they did... gives them more income to develop an even better product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Smart Security firewall will f... up your network sharing no matter how many exclusions you will set. So, antivirus only. Even if you have valid serial for Smart Security, you can install Antivirus with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hello,

 

The difference between ESET NOD32 Antivirus and ESET Smart Security is that NOD32 is an antimalware program (malware is the generic, all-encompassing term to describe bots, rootkits, spyware, trojans, worms, viruses and all the other kinds of code you don't want your computer to run), while Smart Security includes all of NOD32's features and adds antispam, antispam, firewall and parental control features on top of that.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I have to throw this in the mix.

webroot Secure Anywhere  - there is no need for malwarebytes.

 

I have the plain jane Anti-virus version running on over 30 computer, only once in 2 years have I had an infection & that person loves to go to Deep Web & 4chan.

I can not say enough good things about thier Secure Anywhere stuff - there is a reason honest, legit reviews say its the best ever.

 

Not to mention it has the smallest footprint of all AV and the fastest scans.  A complete scan on my 240GB SSD takes about 30 seconds.

 

It is cloud-based, never needs any messing with, updating - nothing.  I absolutely love it.

It is so good infact, I have fallen into this lull thinking viruses are not an issue anymore, because I never have to mess with them.

 

I know e-set is good, but I wanted to mention webroot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I have to throw this in the mix.

webroot Secure Anywhere  - there is no need for malwarebytes.

 

I have the plain jane Anti-virus version running on over 30 computer, only once in 2 years have I had an infection & that person loves to go to Deep Web & 4chan.

I can not say enough good things about thier Secure Anywhere stuff - there is a reason honest, legit reviews say its the best ever.

 

Not to mention it has the smallest footprint of all AV and the fastest scans.  A complete scan on my 240GB SSD takes about 30 seconds.

 

It is cloud-based, never needs any messing with, updating - nothing.  I absolutely love it.

It is so good infact, I have fallen into this lull thinking viruses are not an issue anymore, because I never have to mess with them.

 

I know e-set is good, but I wanted to mention webroot.

in a recent test (3 months ago) i took about 30 mins-1 hour and infected the heck out of a Windows 7 system, then imaged the drive, and then one by one installed/ran all the main stream AV's 1 by one. After each test, the original infected image was restored and the test repeated. Out of the 12, webroot failed (not as bad as some) when compared to Malwarebytes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

in a recent test (3 months ago) i took about 30 mins-1 hour and infected the heck out of a Windows 7 system, then imaged the drive, and then one by one installed/ran all the main stream AV's 1 by one. After each test, the original infected image was restored and the test repeated. Out of the 12, webroot failed (not as bad as some) when compared to Malwarebytes.

So, you installed after an infection ?  Well - I can see the relevance but if you installed, then attempted to infect (which more mimics real life scenarios) I think you would get different results.

You are comparing malwarebytes (a malware remover) in a malware-removing test, to an anti-virus, who's job it is to prevent infections in the 1st place.

You are comparing apples and oranges, in a scenario which heavily benefits the apples.  

If you want to test malwarebytes, do your test against Search & Destroy or something -

You realize malwarebytes is not a proper anti-virus protection, right ?  Its an "after the fact" solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

So, you installed after an infection ?  Well - I can see the relevance but if you installed, then attempted to infect (which more mimics real life scenarios) I think you would get different results.

You are comparing malwarebytes (a malware remover) in a malware-removing test, to an anti-virus, who's job it is to prevent infections in the 1st place.

You are comparing apples and oranges, in a scenario which heavily benefits the apples.  

If you want to test malwarebytes, do your test against Search & Destroy or something -

You realize malwarebytes is not a proper anti-virus protection, right ?  Its an "after the fact" solution.

you can rationalize it anyway you want. if you don't believe what i say, just go test it yourself... in each of the tests against 12 main stream AV's failed against MB... and YES we are talking about all malware included. I have been in the computer industry 20 years, semi- professionally the last 10. Do this for a suprise.. take MB... subscribe, and see for yourself that real time protection is on par to the others, but the clean up is a clear winner. Don't want to do the work to see for yourself? Let me help you then, what do you use for an AV program? I will show you with video the entire process and results to show you that MB by far is the best you can buy (or use free as a clean up tool).

 

added: As pertaining to your first scenario, i can do it that way too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

you can rationalize it anyway you want. if you don't believe what i say, just go test it yourself... in each of the tests against 12 main stream AV's failed against MB... and YES we are talking about all malware included. I have been in the computer industry 20 years, semi- professionally the last 10. Do this for a suprise.. take MB... subscribe, and see for yourself that real time protection is on par to the others, but the clean up is a clear winner. Don't want to do the work to see for yourself? Let me help you then, what do you use for an AV program? I will show you with video the entire process and results to show you that MB by far is the best you can buy (or use free as a clean up tool).

 

added: As pertaining to your first scenario, i can do it that way too.

Not sure why you are getting all bent out of shape.  I simply told you your test was not really testing the ability of an anti-virus' main function -- the prevention of infection.  You are testing malware removal abilities. 

I dont know why you feel the need to tell me you have been doing this for 20 years - I am not arguing your knowledge - just your test.  It is not a rationalization.  You are simply not testing what you think/say you are - thats all.  Its not personal

I am also not doubting your test results, nor your test method - I am just saying its the wrong test if you are wanting to find the best anti-virus, because you are testing a secondary feature of an anti-virus.  Testing a scenario that would only occur if the AV failed at its main purpose.

Malwarebytes paid-for, real time protection might be great - I dont know anything about it.  What I do know is my opinion of webroot is not just mine.  There are some other, well-respected establishments who also claim webroot's Secure Anywhere to be the best.

Again, I am not arguing your knowledge or your test results - its just the wrong test.  I know malwarebytes' malware removal is the best - every PC tech, SysAdmin, and enthusiast knows its the best @ removal.

Most experienced tech, Sysadmins, etc will tell you that proper malware prevention is a "1-2 punch" effort.  A good AV, and mbam if something gets through.

I dont know anything about the real-time, in fact I am a little rusty with mbam period, because the last time I ran it just as a maintenance check, it said "your database is 503 days old, do you want to update?" -  I realize viewing habits and common sense have a lot to do with this too.

Sorry if I somehow offended you - I didn't attack your personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Not sure why you are getting all bent out of shape.  I simply told you your test was not really testing the ability of an anti-virus' main function -- the prevention of infection.  You are testing malware removal abilities. 

I dont know why you feel the need to tell me you have been doing this for 20 years - I am not arguing your knowledge - just your test.  It is not a rationalization.  You are simply not testing what you think/say you are - thats all.  Its not personal

I am also not doubting your test results, nor your test method - I am just saying its the wrong test if you are wanting to find the best anti-virus, because you are testing a secondary feature of an anti-virus.  Testing a scenario that would only occur if the AV failed at its main purpose.

Malwarebytes paid-for, real time protection might be great - I dont know anything about it.  What I do know is my opinion of webroot is not just mine.  There are some other, well-respected establishments who also claim webroot's Secure Anywhere to be the best.

Again, I am not arguing your knowledge or your test results - its just the wrong test.  I know malwarebytes' malware removal is the best - every PC tech, SysAdmin, and enthusiast knows its the best @ removal.

Most experienced tech, Sysadmins, etc will tell you that proper malware prevention is a "1-2 punch" effort.  A good AV, and mbam if something gets through.

I dont know anything about the real-time, in fact I am a little rusty with mbam period, because the last time I ran it just as a maintenance check, it said "your database is 503 days old, do you want to update?" -  I realize viewing habits and common sense have a lot to do with this too.

Sorry if I somehow offended you - I didn't attack your personally.

didn't mean anything by it either, sorry too. i don't have LONG term experince with webroot, but EST i used to run back from guessing... 2004-2009 i think, then switched to avira/MB combo, then eventually dropped Avira completely... will check out this webroot now and use long term. Est i have found (last time i tried it for a long term for month maybe 3 years ago) it impacted system performance a lot but it was a weaker machine at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I have tried webroot and it slows down my web browsing a lot, sometimes even freezing internet explorer, sorry but I pay 80 a month for fast internet speed, cant allow a security software slow me down lol, so I went back to Norton Antivirus, it has had excellent reviews in tests and it doesn't slow me down, that alone with Malwarebytes makes a perfect combination, I would say you still need a firewall, just in case a bad process gets in somehow and starts outbound communications in which case your hardware firewall will not advice you about, I use Windows firewall, light weight and effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is probably too late now, but OP you can usually wait and find really good sales on ESET from time to time. I got ESET Smart Security 1yr 1pc license for $15 from a Newegg sale. Smart Security has been working great for me after I learned how to properly set up the Firewall. Firewall learning mode never seemed to learn certain things though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.