• 0

Definitive Best *Paid* Antivirus 2012


Favorite Paid AV 2012  

231 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Choice? (also see Continued, below)

    • Agnitum Anti Virus/Outpost
      3
    • Alwil Avast! Pro/Internet Security
      10
    • AVG Antivirus PRO/Internet Security
      0
    • Avira Antivirus Premium/Pro/Endpoint
      15
    • Beijing Rising Anti Virus/Internet Security
      1
    • Bullguard Anti Virus/Internet Security
      0
    • CheckPoint Anti Virus/Internet Security
      0
    • Commtouch Command Anti Virus`
      0
    • Comodo Endpoint Security/Internet Security Pro
      2
    • Dr. Web (Dialogue Science) Anti Virus/Security Space
      0
    • Emsisoft Anti-Malware/Internet Security
      2
    • ESET NOD32/Smart Security
      89
    • F-Secure Anti Virus/Internet Security
      1
    • Frisk F-PROT
      0
    • G Data Anti Virus/Interet Security/Total Security
      2
    • GFI (formerly Sunbelt Software) VIPRE Anti Virus
      0
    • ** Not on this list, see below **
      106
  2. 2. Your Choice? [Continued]

    • Hauri ViRobot/Internet Security
      0
    • IKARUS virus.utilities
      0
    • Kaspersky Anti Virus/Internet Security/Pure
      52
    • MalwareBytes Anti Malware PRO
      13
    • McAfee Anti Virus/Internet Security/Total Protection
      4
    • Microsoft Forefront
      8
    • MWTI eScan Anti Virus/Internet Security
      1
    • Norman Anti Virus/Security Suite
      2
    • Panda Anti Virus/Internet Security
      1
    • Softwin BitDefender Anti Virus/Internet Security/Total Security
      7
    • Sophos Endpoint
      3
    • SUPERAntiSpyware
      6
    • Symantec/PC Tools/Norton
      36
    • Total Defense (formerly CA) Anti Virus/Internet Security
      0
    • Trend Micro Anti Virus/Internet Security
      2
    • VirusBlokAda VBA32
      0
    • Other (please specify)
      5
    • ** Not on this list, see above **
      91


Question

Hello,

In the preceding Definitive Best Antivirus 2011 message thread, there were requests to seperate the commercial and free antivirus products. For 2012, I have created two separate polls. This is the poll for the commercial (paid-for) antivirus programs. For free antivirus, please see the Definitive Best Free Antivirus 2012 message thread.

Questions or comments? Post them here in the message thread.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1048481-definitive-best-paid-antivirus-2012/
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

After spending the past few months learning about crypters, viri, etc...I can definitely say Sophos is one of the better paid AVs. Norton is just terrible. When I check Stubs for detections, usually after crypting I'll get 2/46...one of those two is usually always Sophos. I've seen one detection scan show 44/46 detections with Norton and ENOD32 as the only 2 companies without a current scan.

To each his own I guess. I've found that AVG + 1 other usually catches everything.

  • 0

I use Norton, but F-Secure has got nice results in most tests.

By the way, even using Norton, I still keep Malwarebytes' AntiMalware Free installed, and I'd probably keep it no matter what I use. It's a great last resort program.

  • 0

I use Norton, but F-Secure has got nice results in most tests.

By the way, even using Norton, I still keep Malwarebytes' AntiMalware Free installed, and I'd probably keep it no matter what I use. It's a great last resort program.

If you are using it as a last resort program wouldn't you want to pay for it and use it's on demand scanner?

  • 0

Hello,

One thing to keep in mind if you are using a web-based program or one without a memory resident component is that it is probably going to miss detection of some things. For example, viruses, worms or rootkits which use stealth mechanisms to avoid detection on disk or in memory. Even then, there's no such thing as an anti-malware which detects everything. New threats appear daily, and anti-malware programs are updated daily (or more often) to deal with those.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

  • 0

If you are using it as a last resort program wouldn't you want to pay for it and use it's on demand scanner?

Well, honestly I don't know how good it is as a full time AV (since you should only have one of those running). I know it's great to catch and clean things the others can't, but... and for some reason they don't include it on any comparatives I've seen : /
  • 0

Well, honestly I don't know how good it is as a full time AV (since you should only have one of those running). I know it's great to catch and clean things the others can't, but... and for some reason they don't include it on any comparatives I've seen : /

Well malwarebytes is perfectly fine as a second opinion scanner to be run next to your primary AV

  • 0

Well malwarebytes is perfectly fine as a second opinion scanner to be run next to your primary AV

That's what I use malwarebytes for now and it's working out great for me. There's no use in running it full-time if you also have a full-time AV program running.

  • 0

That's what I use malwarebytes for now and it's working out great for me. There's no use in running it full-time if you also have a full-time AV program running.

Actually i disagree. the whole point of a second opinion scanner is just that. A second opinion, meaning what ever the AV might miss malwarebyes might catch.

  • 0

Hello,

While it may be possible to simultaneously run multiple antimalware programs together, at some point, an update of one or the other may introduce conflicts between the two.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Actually i disagree. the whole point of a second opinion scanner is just that. A second opinion, meaning what ever the AV might miss malwarebyes might catch.

  • 0

After using ESET NOD32 for over four years, I finally found another product that I like a bit more. Avira Antivirus Premium 2013. In the past three or four days during my spare time, I have tested the newest versions of the most popular antivirus products including NOD32, Kaspersky, BitDefender, Avast!, AVG, Comodo, Avira, MSE, Norton, Avira, and Webroot SecureAnywhere. I did not plan on posting very specific test results, but I can probably separate them into a few categories for you. Among the worst are AVG, MSE, and Webroot. They had a combination of false positives and missed some hardcore malware. Honorable products include NOD32, Norton (holy hell, never thought I would say that...but they have improved dramatically), and BitDefender. The best results were from Avira, Kaspersky, and Comodo.

Funny, Avira doesn't mention that it has zero-day prevention, yet it blocked more than any other product. That is what impressed me the most. Comodo and Kaspersky were very close in quality to Avira, but I could not get over the ugly interface of both. Also, they included many features that I just will not use, so that is more RAM usage for no reason. Avira idles around 45-50 MB which is not the best, but I figured all around it was the most solid product and best fit for me. People will disagree with me, I'm sure. I recommend anyone in the market to renew their antivirus or perhaps get a new one should do the product testing themselves. It is kind of fun, not sure why! My girlfriend wondered how I could spend so much time doing something so "boring".

  • 0

So between KAV Internet Security and Norton Internet Security, which is better? Norton has come a long way, and I kind of want to try it. I will be buying whichever one I want after the trial.

Norton haters, step aside. It's got some good reviews.

  • 0

So between KAV Internet Security and Norton Internet Security, which is better? Norton has come a long way, and I kind of want to try it. I will be buying whichever one I want after the trial.

Norton haters, step aside. It's got some good reviews.

From my tests, Kaspersky was a bit better than Norton. In part because Kaspersky detection was near perfect. Norton is surely not a slouch though by any means. It did a very good job as well.

  • 0

  1. NOD32
  2. F-Secure
  3. Kaspersky

Why? Because those three are the most secure of all of them and have very little performance impact. I use all three of them. I trialhop. One month of NOD32, one month of F-Secure and one month of Kaspersky. Then I format my PC, re-install Windows and do the same again :p

I don't really have experience with how well they work since I just don't download things with viruses. Common sense still beats any antivirus in detection rate.

  • 0

From my tests, Kaspersky was a bit better than Norton. In part because Kaspersky detection was near perfect. Norton is surely not a slouch though by any means. It did a very good job as well.

Thanks!!

Norton isn't too far behind KAV if I remember correctly, right? I would go to KAV but $69 kind of puts me off. I mostly only go to trusted, normal sites and want some added protection. NIS is $33 on amazon compared to KAV's $69

  • 0

Thanks!!

Norton isn't too far behind KAV if I remember correctly, right? I would go to KAV but $69 kind of puts me off. I mostly only go to trusted, normal sites and want some added protection. NIS is $33 on amazon compared to KAV's $69

I've been using Norton 360 for the last 2 years. Norton has made their product very good, much better than the slow bloatware days of old.

  • 0

Really In fact I never see Antivirus similar to ESET NOD32 I got it from friend and was really superior

fast response kill virus in fly

Heuristics Technology really works not like other software use it like fake thing

specially I have experience with unkown virus (not destruction virus) download it accidentally fake software increas internet speed . NOD32 detect it immediatly Heuristics Technology and told me thier is high potential the file are new virus . but I ignore that message specially after scan it from all antivirus on Virus Total report me the file are clean

The surprise is the file was really virus and they explorer it after few months later !

this teach me lessons 1st not run files from unkown sources 2d trust on everything my AV told me Specially NOD32.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!