• 0

Definitive Best Antivirus


Definitive Best Antivirus  

950 members have voted

  1. 1. Your choice?

    • Avast!
      94
    • AVG
      110
    • BitDefender
      22
    • Kaspersky
      140
    • McAfee
      36
    • NOD32
      376
    • Norton
      44
    • Symantec
      54
    • Panda
      8
    • N/A
      66
  2. 2. Your choice?

    • Trend Micro
      71
    • Zone Labs
      106
    • Windows One Care
      62
    • AntiVir
      57
    • F-Secure
      31
    • ClamWin
      15
    • VBA32
      1
    • Sophos
      7
    • Other (please specify below)
      52
    • N/A
      548


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I've been an Avast user for a while, really like it but it can be a bit of a memory hog sometimes.

Just tried ClamWin antivirus tho. No active scanner, that I don't really need or even want anyway, but right click windows explorer integration to scan any file anytime I want, and wow now thats low resource usage, and 1 process, just one.

Yea I like this a lot.

  • 0

I don't use AV. I use spyware blaster and a custom hosts file to block nasties that come through the web-browser.

I have an account with 1and1.co.uk who run all my e-mail through spam and av filters.

Never had a virus :D

  • 0

AVG > any other one AV solutions

And FYI, there is no one "end all" solution for AV. AVG will miss things that you'll need another program/tool to remove. It's the best because it takes up the least resources and has the one of the highest detection rate. Not to mention it's free.

Grisoft also just purchased Ewido so spyware protection may be added to AVG.

from my experience this is very untrue.

I used AVG for so long, one day my pc got infected with a virus that it couldnt remove. I decided to try NOD32 and guess what, it detected more than 10 viruses that AVG wasnt able to detect.

using NOD32 since then.

  • 0

well going by another website that said 320 viruses were tested for, this is what i'll believe:

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)

2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%

3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%

4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%

6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%

8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%

9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%

10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%

11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%

12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%

13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%

14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%

15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%

16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%

17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%

18) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%

19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%

20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%

21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%

22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%

23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%

24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%

25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%

26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%

27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%

28) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%

29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%

30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

  • 0
well going by another website that said 320 viruses were tested for, this is what i'll believe:

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)

2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%

3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%

4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%

6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%

8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%

9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%

10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%

11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%

12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%

13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%

14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%

15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%

16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%

17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%

18) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%

19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%

20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%

21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%

22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%

23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%

24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%

25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%

26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%

27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%

28) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%

29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%

30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

HOW ABOUT THESE:

Rank

1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.390- 99.46%

Kaspersky 2006 beta version 6.0.15.222- 99.46%

2. F-Secure 2006 version 6.10.330 - 96.92%

3. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 96.62%

4. eScan Virus Control version 2.6.522.9 - 95.21%

5. McAfee version 10.0.27 - 94.80%

6. BitDefender version 9 - 90.75%

7. Nod32 version 2.50.41 - 88.79%

8. AntiVir Personal version 6.32.00.51 - 86.55%

9. MKS_VIR 2005 - 86.16%

10. Norton Professional version 2006 - 85.17%

11. F-Prot version 3.16d - 84.96%

12. Dr. Web version 4.33 - 84.68%

13. Panda Titanium 2006 version 5.01.00 - 82.02%

14. Virus Chaser version 5.0a - 79.37%

15. AVG version 7.1.371 - 77.97%

16. PC-Cillin 2006 version 14.00.1341 - 77.84%

17. Avast version 4.6.744 - 76.93%

18. BullGuard version 6 - 74.02%

19. UNA version 1.83 - 69.83%

20. Norman version 5.83.07 - 69.13%

21. Sophos Sweep version 3.99 - 67.76%

22. VBA32 version 3.10.5 - 63.36%

23. Zondex Guard version 5.3.3 - 56.81%

24. Vexira 2005 version 5.001.32 - 51.62%

25. ClamWin version 0.87.1 - 48.45%

26. E-Trust version 7.0.6.7 - 47.84%

27. ZoneAlarm with VET Antivirus version 6.1.737.000 - 47.70%

28. Digital Patrol version 5.00.08 - 47.02%

29. Ewido version 3.5 - 46.31%

30. V3Pro 2004 - 44.16%

31. Solo 4.0 version 3.1.0 - 42.45%

32. Fire version 2.7 - 38.38%

33. Protector Plus version 7.2.H01 - 38.06%

34. A Squared Personal version 1.6 - 35.31%

35. Quick Heal version 8.00 - 33.76%

36. ViRobot Expert version 4.0 - 32.37%

37. AntiTrojan Shield version 2.1.0.14 - 26.45%

38. PC Door Guard version 4.2.0.35- 26.05%

39. Trojan Hunter version 4.2.908 - 11.53%

40. VirIT version 5.2.53 - 10.33%

41. Tauscan version 1.70.1414 - 7.21%

42. Trojan Remover version 6.4.4 - 7.19%

43. The Cleaner version 4.1.42.52 - 5.97%

44. CounterSpy version 1.5.82 - 5.87%

45. SpySweeper version 4.5.7.642 - 2.99%

46. IP Armor version 5.46.0703 - 2.46%

47. Hacker Eliminator version 1.2 - 1.77%

48. Spyware Doctor version 3.2.2.453 - 1.55%

49. Abacre 1.3 - 0.00%

50. SpyHunter 2.0 - 0.00%

  • 0

I use NOD32 because it doesn't slow down my computer as much as Kaspersky did. But I trust Kaspersky more and I don't feel as secure with NOD32 :(

BTW, it's "Kaspersky". You might want to fix that ;)

With the introduction of the version 6 release, it has had major improvements. Speed is definitely one of them. Give the new version 6 a try if speed is what was stopping you from using it before.

Isn't 6.0.0.299 (out now) final?

Yes it is.

======

I use both - and resell both. Different customers have different needs. School districts benefit from NOD32 hands down. I could argue the point with anyone, all day and all night. No other solution comes close to satisfying their needs in an efficient and effective manner. Unfortunately, KAV enterprise really falls waaaay short on this aspect.

Plus, in the version 5 world, KAV was always soooo much slower than NOD32 and all my clients noticed it. Changed all of them over to NOD32 and they absolutely love it. Never a single error, as NOD32 has one hell of a fantastic program engine.

NOD32 seems to excel in the program itself, but not as much in the AV database. I still have yet to have a client infected on either AV program, but KAV simply detects more.

We use KAV on Novell servers because it's one of the few that actually update by itself, without the necessity of a workstation to update the server itself. KAV takes care of everything with no user intervention, period. We use it with any client that has a Novell GroupWise installation. KAV detects everything that comes in via the email server.

GWAVA has incorporated the engine, as well as GFI and Sybari. Sybari got bought out, so I don't know if it still does, but anyone who incorporates 3rd party AV tools normally tries to get in good with Kaspersky because it's simply one of the smartest possible moves you can make.

I am actually using Kasersky Internet Security to try out their entire new package. I'm very impressed. Talk about a client interface overhaul. It looks so pretty, as their old versions looked so legacy. Very very very great-looking application interface. It's definitely easier to navigate than NOD32. I'm familiar with all aspects of both apps, as it's part of my job - but for someone who really has to find settings themselves, KAV is simply easier to navigate.

Tech support for KAV is absolutely outstanding. NOD32 has also been great, but if I had to rate them on a 10 scale, it's KAV=10 and Eset=7. When I email my support team with KAV, I get a reply back within 5 minutes most of the time. Makes no difference what time it is - absolutely incredible. Eset has had some hurdles it's fallen over, but they get up very quickly to help out.

It's kinda late here so I'm not as organized in this post as I should be, but I'd have to pick 2 of them - NOD32 and KAV. If you simply want the best AV database - it's KAV hands-down. NOD32 would win my vote for best compatibility with other apps and application stability. I cannot remember one time that I have EVER seen NOD32 crash on ANY PC I have installed it on. KAV has definitely crashed plenty of times for me in many different environments. On my Dell laptop, I could simply install Windows XP (with no mods) and then install KAV 5.x afterwards. BSOD every time, no matter what. We simply couldn't find a fix for it. With 6, I used Acronis and imaged my laptop, uninstalled NOD32 and installed KAV. Perfect results.

I'll see how the new KAV 6 performs. So far it looks to be quite promising IMO.

I'm not a Symantec fan, especially for larger organizations because its MMC plugin is horrible. We've taken schools off SAV CE (where the networks have been infected by various viruses) and migrated them over to NOD32. Amazing how I sometimes see results stating that Symantec detects more than NOD32. Since the schools have gone over to NOD32 from SAV, they have yet to get infected with viruses that NOD32 hasn't detected and eradicated without a network incident.

Hopefully this post is of interest to some of you. ;)

  • 0

With the introduction of the version 6 release, it has had major improvements. Speed is definitely one of them. Give the new version 6 a try if speed is what was stopping you from using it before.

Yes it is.

======

I use both - and resell both. Different customers have different needs. School districts benefit from NOD32 hands down. I could argue the point with anyone, all day and all night. No other solution comes close to satisfying their needs in an efficient and effective manner. Unfortunately, KAV enterprise really falls waaaay short on this aspect.

Plus, in the version 5 world, KAV was always soooo much slower than NOD32 and all my clients noticed it. Changed all of them over to NOD32 and they absolutely love it. Never a single error, as NOD32 has one hell of a fantastic program engine.

NOD32 seems to excel in the program itself, but not as much in the AV database. I still have yet to have a client infected on either AV program, but KAV simply detects more.

We use KAV on Novell servers because it's one of the few that actually update by itself, without the necessity of a workstation to update the server itself. KAV takes care of everything with no user intervention, period. We use it with any client that has a Novell GroupWise installation. KAV detects everything that comes in via the email server.

GWAVA has incorporated the engine, as well as GFI and Sybari. Sybari got bought out, so I don't know if it still does, but anyone who incorporates 3rd party AV tools normally tries to get in good with Kaspersky because it's simply one of the smartest possible moves you can make.

I am actually using Kasersky Internet Security to try out their entire new package. I'm very impressed. Talk about a client interface overhaul. It looks so pretty, as their old versions looked so legacy. Very very very great-looking application interface. It's definitely easier to navigate than NOD32. I'm familiar with all aspects of both apps, as it's part of my job - but for someone who really has to find settings themselves, KAV is simply easier to navigate.

Tech support for KAV is absolutely outstanding. NOD32 has also been great, but if I had to rate them on a 10 scale, it's KAV=10 and Eset=7. When I email my support team with KAV, I get a reply back within 5 minutes most of the time. Makes no difference what time it is - absolutely incredible. Eset has had some hurdles it's fallen over, but they get up very quickly to help out.

It's kinda late here so I'm not as organized in this post as I should be, but I'd have to pick 2 of them - NOD32 and KAV. If you simply want the best AV database - it's KAV hands-down. NOD32 would win my vote for best compatibility with other apps and application stability. I cannot remember one time that I have EVER seen NOD32 crash on ANY PC I have installed it on. KAV has definitely crashed plenty of times for me in many different environments. On my Dell laptop, I could simply install Windows XP (with no mods) and then install KAV 5.x afterwards. BSOD every time, no matter what. We simply couldn't find a fix for it. With 6, I used Acronis and imaged my laptop, uninstalled NOD32 and installed KAV. Perfect results.

I'll see how the new KAV 6 performs. So far it looks to be quite promising IMO.

I'm not a Symantec fan, especially for larger organizations because its MMC plugin is horrible. We've taken schools off SAV CE (where the networks have been infected by various viruses) and migrated them over to NOD32. Amazing how I sometimes see results stating that Symantec detects more than NOD32. Since the schools have gone over to NOD32 from SAV, they have yet to get infected with viruses that NOD32 hasn't detected and eradicated without a network incident.

Hopefully this post is of interest to some of you. ;)

it was a good comparison....but for free antivirus, avast and avg which is better?? Comparing the stability and memory consumption

  • 0

:laugh: That's a spam list, has been posted on several forums, all of them without a source

of where it came from. This list tries to promote eXtendia AVK see how always appear

on the 1st or 2nd place on all those lists.

Take a look

http://forums.infoprosjoint.net/showthread.php?t=6045

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,105...=flat~days=9999

http://forums.techwatch.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=3871&sid=8

So, next time you post a list like that, at least provide a known source ;)

well going by another website that said 320 viruses were tested for, this is what i'll believe:

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)

2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%

3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%

4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%

6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%

8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%

9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%

10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%

11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%

12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%

13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%

14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%

15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%

16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%

17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%

18) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%

19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%

20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%

21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%

22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%

23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%

24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%

25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%

26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%

27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%

28) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%

29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%

30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

Edited by Lare2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The laptop in the bedroom is an Acer with i7-10510U CPU. Acer's website states they will not be upgrading it so I had little choice other than disable secure boot. I know next to nothing on these matters so hopefully it will be fine.
    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      462
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!