• 0

Definitive Best PAID Antivirus 2017


Definitive Best PAID Antivirus 2017  

102 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you choose?

    • Avast! Pro/Internet Security
    • AVG Antivirus PRO/Internet Security
    • Avira Antivirus Premium/Pro/Endpoint
    • BitDefender Anti-Virus/Internet Security/Total Security
    • Comodo Endpoint Security/Internet Security Pro
      0
    • Dr. Web Anti-Virus/Security Space
      0
    • Emsisoft Anti-Malware/Internet Security
    • ESET NOD32/Smart Security/Endpoint Security
    • F-Secure
    • Kaspersky Anti-Virus
    • MalwareBytes Anti-Malware PRO
    • McAfee Antivirus
      0
    • Panda Antivirus/Internet Security
    • Secureaplus
    • Sophos Endpoint
    • Symantec/PC Tools/Norton
    • Trend Micro Anti-Virus/Internet Security
    • Vipre Antivirus
      0
    • Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus
    • ZoneAlarm Pro
      0
    • Other (please specify below)


Question

It's a new year, and so we have a new poll for Definitive Best Paid Antivirus.The 2016 thread can be found here.


This is a poll for best PAID antivirus software. There is a separate thread for FREE antivirus software here
 
If your choice of paid antivirus software is not listed, please choose Other and specify in the comments.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1317868-definitive-best-paid-antivirus-2017/
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I think most will post simply what they have use without any actual testing or knowledge. Over the years, I have loved doing tests of many for cleaning and prevention. While I have NOT tested out all of the above mentioned names (as well as not doing a wide test for a couple years), Malwarebytes USED to be always top dog in any tests that I performed vs others like Panda, Norton, Macafee, Avast, AVG, Bit defender, Fsecure etc etc. For this reason, I still use Malwarebytes (and have for the last 7 years).

  • 0
8 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

I think most will post simply what they have use without any actual testing or knowledge. Over the years, I have loved doing tests of many for cleaning and prevention. While I have NOT tested out all of the above mentioned names (as well as not doing a wide test for a couple years), Malwarebytes USED to be always top dog in any tests that I performed vs others like Panda, Norton, Macafee, Avast, AVG, Bit defender, Fsecure etc etc. For this reason, I still use Malwarebytes (and have for the last 7 years).

MalwareBytes until their latest release did not have Anti-Virus Protection.

  • 0
17 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

MalwareBytes until their latest release did not have Anti-Virus Protection.

Always a cool story when you/anyone says that, but it always "cleaned" up what other "antivirus" programs couldn't see and/or couldn't remove in ALL tests. Reversely, no protection suite I tested could ever find anything AFTER cleaning with MB. 

Disclaimer: Yes, perhaps I didn't get the "right" infections, however, the infections that I did get are standard files from websites, junk sites, warez sites, porn sites, hack sites, fake AV installs, fake patches, fake programs, bit torrent viruses etc etc etc, which would be what 99% of people would be subject to. 

Edited by Rippleman
  • Like 2
  • 0
1 hour ago, Rippleman said:

Always a cool story when you/anyone says that, but it always "cleaned" up what other "antivirus" programs couldn't see and/or couldn't remove in ALL tests. Reversely, no protection suite I tested could ever find anything AFTER cleaning with MB.

Not a story friend it is a fact. I use MBAM and have since it came out. It does pick up malware and PUPS but I would never use it as a single source of Protection, but that is me YMMV.

  • 0
1 hour ago, Gary7 said:

Not a story friend it is a fact. I use MBAM and have since it came out. It does pick up malware and PUPS but I would never use it as a single source of Protection, but that is me YMMV.

What I said is also fact. As much as you claim it doesn't pick up viruses, what ever MB called them it did and did very well (according to all other "virus" scanners (i guess all the other protection suites are lying :) ) And I agree, never rely on just one. I used Avira for a backup scanner -which was never needed. 

  • 0
Just now, Rippleman said:

What I said is also fact. As much as you claim it doesn't pick up viruses, it did and did very well (according to all other "virus" scanners (i guess all the other protection suites are lying :) ) And I agree, never rely on just one. I used Avira for a backup scanner -which was never needed. 

Seven years ago MBAM did not pick up Viruses. It is a great secondary program. I am not disputing that. It was never marketed as an Anti Virus Program.

  • 0
28 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Seven years ago MBAM did not pick up Viruses. It is a great secondary program. I am not disputing that. It was never marketed as an Anti Virus Program.

Lets  recap just so they was can be perfectly clear. 

 

Fact: MB was not marketed as an avtivirus. Check.

 

Fact: It removed any viruses it found that other suites missed/could not/would not/ and identified.

 

If you are into testing and wish to see for yourself, you can download old versions of MB and try. It appears you may be shocked by the findings. 

  • 0
6 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

Lets  recap just so they was can be perfectly clear. 

 

Fact: MB was not marketed as an avtivirus. Check.

 

Fact: It removed any viruses it found that other suites missed/could not/would not/ and identified.

 

If you are into testing and wish to see for yourself, you can download old versions of MB and try. It appears you may be shocked by the findings. 

It was named Malware---Bytes for a reason.. I posted I used it for as long as I remember!

All-In-One Anti-Malware

 

http://www.majorgeeks.com/mg/sortname/all_in_one_malware_removal_suites.html

 

Capture.PNG

 

Antivirus

http://www.majorgeeks.com/mg/sortname/all_in_one_anti_virus_suites.html

 

MajorGeeks has it wrong then as they say it is anti-Malware and they are not referring to Chameleon and neither was I:)///

 

  • 0
1 hour ago, Gary7 said:

It was named Malware---Bytes for a reason.. I posted I used it for as long as I remember!

All-In-One Anti-Malware

 

http://www.majorgeeks.com/mg/sortname/all_in_one_malware_removal_suites.html

 

Capture.PNG

 

Antivirus

http://www.majorgeeks.com/mg/sortname/all_in_one_anti_virus_suites.html

 

MajorGeeks has it wrong then as they say it is anti-Malware and they are not referring to Chameleon and neither was I:)///

 

All I was saying that most people made the claim it wasn't an AV (even MB themselves), but when testing/using, it did an equal (and better) job at removing "viruses" that it wasn't supposed to do. :) I invite anyone to try testing the old versions and see for themselves. 

  • 0

I went with Eset as I use it for my office PC's and have found their support to be brilliant, and some of the additional features on the business version are really useful.  Although on my home PC I'm using Kaspersky alongside Malwarebytes Pro.

  • 0
13 hours ago, James7 said:

I'm guessing that means it doesn't slow you down when whitelisted applications are running.

 
 

Not at all. This means that regardless of definition files nothing new executes in memory without my say so. They also have a huge list of company signatures. So those run without prompting.

  • 0

I bought a 1-year subscription to BitDefender earlier this year after not using a paid anti-virus for over a decade because I admit became a little paranoid about ransomware.  I uninstalled it after 3 months as it just seemed unnecessary and I backup my important ###### anyway. I have literally only had a couple of virus warnings in my whole history of using AV products (like 30 years).  Just being smart along with Windows Defender (cloud option off) , an ad-blocker, and no Flash or Java installed works for me.

 

 

18 hours ago, Rippleman said:

I think most will post simply what they have use without any actual testing or knowledge. Over the years, I have loved doing tests of many for cleaning and prevention. While I have NOT tested out all of the above mentioned names (as well as not doing a wide test for a couple years), Malwarebytes USED to be always top dog in any tests that I performed vs others like Panda, Norton, Macafee, Avast, AVG, Bit defender, Fsecure etc etc. For this reason, I still use Malwarebytes (and have for the last 7 years).

 

17 hours ago, Rippleman said:

Always a cool story when you/anyone says that, but it always "cleaned" up what other "antivirus" programs couldn't see and/or couldn't remove in ALL tests. Reversely, no protection suite I tested could ever find anything AFTER cleaning with MB. 

Disclaimer: Yes, perhaps I didn't get the "right" infections, however, the infections that I did get are standard files from websites, junk sites, warez sites, porn sites, hack sites, fake AV installs, fake patches, fake programs, bit torrent viruses etc etc etc, which would be what 99% of people would be subject to. 

 

I am kinda impressed you are talking all that time to setup test boxes to evaluate anti-virus products but... Personally I prefer to rely on a couple of sites that I trust that are more knowledge than me (or you) and test this stuff for a living but each their own.

  • 0
8 minutes ago, oldtimefighter said:

I bought a 1-year subscription to BitDefender earlier this year after not using a paid anti-virus for over a decade because I admit became a little paranoid about ransomware.  I uninstalled it after 3 months as it just seemed unnecessary and I backup my important ###### anyway. I have literally only had a couple of virus warnings in my whole history of using AV products (like 30 years).  Just being smart along with Windows Defender (cloud option off) , an ad-blocker, and no Flash or Java installed works for me.

 

 

 

 

I am kinda impressed you are talking all that time to setup test boxes to evaluate anti-virus products but... Personally I prefer to rely on a couple of sites that I trust that are more knowledge than me (or you) and test this stuff for a living but each their own.

i agree that is only anecdotal, but it is what it is. About 3 years ago I shut down the store stopped being in the computer business after 15 years, business just came down to trickle of what it used to be. Not too much demand for desktops and support compared to what it was like 15 years ago in my area.  One of the main things through that entire time though of course was viruses and cleanups. Guessing in that 15 years, had probably about 3,000 service calls with customers having viruses problems. Back in the day, options were limited on what a person could do and many times, the easiest/fastest solution was always format and start fresh. Thankfully when companies like MB and the like came around, it made other options start to be available. Malwarebytes (free and paid) were always my go-to program among others of course and did an amazing job. Now a days, if friends or family come to me, it still is my go-to program, after a clean up with malwarebytes, i then install 360 total security since it is free and hassle free and chrome with adblocker. . But, after all these years and my strong recommendations, not to many of my social circle people have issues since once i setup their machine, problems become drastically less likely (mostly non existent).  The only times I seem to have issues is when some of their grand-kids intentionally turn off protection to install something they shouldn't. :) 

I don't know what I did with the videos I made a couple years ago with the experiments of AV suites, It was definitely time consuming, and took days upon days of work. I may redo the tests again in 2017 with video. I still have interest in this stuff. 

  • 0

Hello,

 

Anti-spam is available in ESET Internet Security and ESET Smart Security Premium, but not in ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

 

On 1/2/2017 at 11:37 PM, Zagadka said:

I recently switched from Avast to ESET, and the one thing I'm really missing is Avast's email spam plugin. Other than that, happy.

 

  • 0
On 1/4/2017 at 10:25 AM, Mando said:

Webroot Secure Anywhere hands down.

 

 

EXACTLY!

When someone mentions another AV is better than webroot - I automatically assume its because they havent tried webroot.


FWIW - I have given a couple neowinians a webroot license for them to try it out  - I havent had 1 person tell me they uninstalled it...

 

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!