• 0

Definitive Best *Paid* Antivirus 2012

Asked by goretsky,

 Share

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

Grand Master

goretsky Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

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

99 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Collaborator

Jombi

Posted
Posted

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
Proficient

epk

Posted
Posted

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
Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

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
Grand Master

goretsky Supervisor

Posted
  • Author
  • Supervisor
Posted

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
Proficient

epk

Posted
Posted

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
Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

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
Contributor

TTGSteve

Posted
Posted

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
Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

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
Grand Master

goretsky Supervisor

Posted
  • Author
  • Supervisor
Posted

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
Grand Master

Yorak

Posted
Posted

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
Grand Master

Dane

Posted
Posted

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
Grand Master

Yorak

Posted
Posted

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
Grand Master

Ambroos

Posted
Posted

  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
Grand Master

Dane

Posted
Posted

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
Mentor

Nerd Rage

Posted
Posted

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
Rookie

salim8

Posted
Posted

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.
 Share
Go to question listing

  • Posts

    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end

      By hellowalkman · Posted

      We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation 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.
    • Save 66% on a MagTag Ultra Slim Tracker Card for Apple or Android

      By Brian Miller · Posted

      If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
    • Rockstar confirms Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders begin next week, unveils cover art

      By Dan~ · Posted

      I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • 007 First Light review: Satisfying spy adventure that James Bond needed

      By Nargg · Posted

      I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off

      By Fiza Ali · Posted

      Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      577
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!