Antivirus and Internet Security 2010 Comparison

[TJCS]

AV performance Comparison found here.

AV Suites Tested:

1. Avira AntiVir Personal v9
2. Avira AntiVir Premium v9
3. Avira Premium Security Suite v9
4. AVG Anti-Virus v9
5. AVG Internet Security v9
6. AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition v9
7. avast! Free Antivirus v5
8. avast! Internet Security v5
9. avast! Pro Antivirus v5
10. a-squared Anti-Malware 4.5
11. Ashampoo AntiSpyWare 2.10
12. Ashampoo Anti-Malware v1
13. ArcaVir 2010 Antivirus Protection
14. AhnLab V3 Internet Security 8.0
15. Antiy Ghostbusters v6.5.1.4
16. Ad-Aware Pro Internet Security v8.1.3
17. BitDefender Antivirus 2010
18. BitDefender Internet Security 2010
19. BitDefender Total Security 2010
20. BluePoint Security 2010
21. BullGuard Internet Security 8.7
22. CA Internet Security Suite Plus 2010
23. CA Anti-Virus Plus Anti-Spyware 2010
24. Command Anti-Malware v5.1
25. Comodo Internet Security v3.13
26. Digital Patrol v5.2
27. DriveSentry Desktop v3.4 and DriveSentry Security Suite v1
28. Dr.WEB Anti-Virus v5
29. Dr.WEB Security Space v5
30. eEye Blink Personal v4.5.1
31. eScan AntiVirus v10
32. eScan Internet Security Suite
33. ESET NOD32 Antivirus v4
34. ESET Smart Security v4
35. FortiClient Endpoint Security Suite v4.1.2
36. F-PROT Antivirus v6
37. G Data AntiVirus 2010
38. G Data InternetSecurity 2010
39. G Data Total Care 2010
40. IKARUS virus.utilities v1.0.166
41. Immunet Protect v1.0.22
42. iolo AntiVirus v1.5.3
43. iolo System Shield 3
44. KV AntiVirus 2010
45. K7 AntiVirus v7.0
46. K7 TotalSecurity v10.0
47. Kingsoft Internet Security 9 Plus
48. Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010
49. Kaspersky Internet Security 2010
50. McAfee VirusScan Plus
51. McAfee Internet Security
52. McAfee Total Security
53. Microsoft Security Essentials
54. mks_vir v9.0
55. MultiCore AntiVirus & AntiSpyware v2
56. My Free Antivirus v2.2
57. Net Protector 2010
58. Norman Security Suite
59. Norton AntiVirus 2010 v17.1.0.19
60. Norton Internet Security 2010
61. Norton 360 Version 3.0
62. nProtect Anti-Virus Spyware 2007
63. Outpost Antivirus Pro 2009
64. Outpost Security Suite 2009
65. Keygold Secure Internet Security Suite
66. Panda Could Antivirus
67. Panda Antivirus Pro 2010
68. Panda Internet Security 2010
69. Panda Global Protection 2010
70. ParetoLogic Anti-Virus PLUS v6.1.1
71. Spyware Doctor with AntiVirus 2010
72. PC Tools Internet Security 2010
73. Prevx 3.0
74. Protector Plus Professional v9
75. Rising AntiVirus 2010
76. Solo Anti-Virus 2010
77. Spyware Terminator 2.6.5
78. Steganos AntiVirus 12
79. Steganos Internet Security 12
80. The Cleaner 2010
81. Security Shield 2010
82. The Shield Deluxe 2010
83. Thirtyseven4 Antivirus
84. Trend Micro Internet Security 2010
85. Trend Micro AntiVirus + AntiSpyware 2010
86. Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2010
87. TrustPort Antivirus 2010
88. TrustPort PC Security 2010
89. Twister AntiVirus
90. Vba32 Personal v3.12.10.11
91. VIPRE Antivirus + Antispyware
92. Vir.IT eXplorer AntiVirus v6.5
93. ViRobot Desktop v5.5
94. VirusBuster Personal v6.2.51
95. VirusBuster Professional v6.2.51
96. VirusBuster Internet Security Suite v3.1
97. Virus Chaser v5.0b
98. VIRUSfighter
99. Webroot AntiVirus with Spy Sweeper 2010
100. Webroot Internet Security Essentials 2010
101. Zondex Guard v5.4.2
102. ZoneAlarm Antivirus 2010
103. ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 2010
104. ZoneAlarm Extreme Security 2010
105. F-Secure Antivirus 2010
106. F-Secure Internet Security 2010

 

[tzdk]

That is really a bad "test". But since easy to read with ranks and all it will naturally be popular 136 responses as of right now. Google material.

 

[Lemon law]

I gotta agree with tzdk, after all just look at the evaluation criteria which is , " Best Performing (Speed & Memory Usage)"

By that criteria, nothing at all would win because no AV at all imposes no hits on speed or memory.

But it somewhat shows how hard it is to have an unbiased criteria to evaluate anti virus programs, do we evaluate them on detection rate, number of false positives, speed of scan, memory footprint, speed of patching zero day threats, and since AV's are really designed to detect only the worse threats, do we downgrade them when they fail to detect ordinary malware better addressed by other security programs? And since an anti virus should not be the only security protection, we also have to ask how well does it interact with other security programs on your computer?

 

[tcsenter]

To me, the idle memory usage readings is no longer accurate because a lot of antivirus is able to clean its memory usage bringing it to a really low number when the computer is idle. Do take a look at the peak memory usage instead.

lol! What a moron. A lot of programs wait until the computer is idle to perform many background tasks, updates, and scans, which would necessarily raise memory and CPU usage. Why would anyone care about their memory usage when their computer is idle?

On edit: I also know that some applications prioritize certain background tasks right after installation but don't run them as often after those tasks have completed. e.g.

The first few days after I installed Norton AV 2010, it seemed to constantly be doing something in the background, so I would let it finish rather than shutting the computer down. I also used the 'manual' optimization feature in Norton Performance and let it complete (took about one hour). Thereafter, its almost as though its not even running.

 

[jjmIII]

...do we evaluate them on detection rate?

Thats what matters to me.

Speed and memory usage mean little on a 3+ ghz quad w/ 6gb of DDR3.

 

[tzdk]

True that you have to "live with" whatever product for some days. At least goes for the more advanced ones like new Avast who really suck at first "full scans", but that is because it builds a cache! Eventually slow scan times result in close to zero I/O and cpu usage. With an exception in webshield for those who need that. One of the best new features of Avast 5 make it look bad, heh.

AV-Comparatives did a similar test few years ago, not their best work Can't really see how it is possible to test "performance" in a meaningful way.

MSE is another example. Has a life of its own and seems to scan left and right 24/7. May be possible to make it sit still for a picture, but then it is off again. To get an idea of cpu/mem usage in real life conditions there should be a history of cpu and i/o usage while performing much the same tasks. Then again that will only count on that particular computer. Mixes of XP, Vista, 7, 32bit, 64bit wont give same result either. Working with 1000000 vs. 3000000 files could also impact result. Not to forget relationship to other programs.

If he spent all that time on only 5 products he would know every setting they have, every bug reported at product forums and so on. Focusing only on DEFAULT might make sense in a testing situation, but most AVs are modular. Settings are there to be used. What matters for performance and what does not? What matters for protection and what does not? With only a handful of programs there would be little doubt in his mind, and it would shine through regardless fixed numbers could still be questioned.

 

[TJCS]

I could not comprehend why AVG-Free is higher-ranked than NOD32 v4 on this list. There may be times where AVG scan completes faster than NOD32, but NOD32 has much better detection/removal of viruses than AVG from personal experience.

 

[lxskllr]

I could not comprehend why AVG-Free is higher-ranked than NOD32 v4 on this list. There may be times where AVG scan completes faster than NOD32, but NOD32 has much better detection/removal of viruses than AVG from personal experience.

It's in alphabetical order :^P

 

[TJCS]

It's in alphabetical order :^P

hahaha thanks for pointing that out, i feel really... @#$%^ for not noticing it. I am going to update the title.

 

[TJCS]

I agree this review only gives a snap-shot of specific performance aspect of an AV, and it is not a good best overall AV type of review. I apologize for posting material that I haven't yet thoroughly gone threw to check its validity.

 

[lxskllr]

I agree this review only gives a snap-shot of specific performance aspect of an AV, and it is not a good best overall AV type of review. I apologize for posting material that I haven't yet thoroughly gone threw to check its validity.

Well, it's valid on some level, but their criteria isn't what I base /my/ A/V choice on. I look for good detection rates, and a lack of irritating behavior. Scan speed? I don't really care. I don't sit and watch it. Same thing with resource usage. It's a minor concern, and it can be the tipping point for otherwise equal products, but I have resources to spare, so it isn't a primary concern of mine.