NunoAntunes :
About Kaspersky vs ESET vs BD, imo it'll all come down to personnal preference. I got like 3 years of paid kaspersky before and the last year I decided to change it around and try paid version of ESET, which I'm using in one computer, having Kaspersky in the other. As long as you avoid really dodgy stuff, you're probably safe with either of those. BD I've heard it scored very well but only used it as a trial and that's the main reason I can't recommend you that. Kasp vs ESET is down to personal preference. I have one on each computer and they both are good although my preference goes slightly to ESET.
You do have to remember that first hand user experience does not equate to actual protection. There's a reason I never recommend AV software off of what I experience, unless I'm referring to the UI. Since the end user is almost never going to find all malware their AV did not catch, if any, and you can't expect them to do much research to find out whether something was caught or not. Let's face it, the research that the majority of users do regarding malware is minimal at best. Ask random users on here how they gauge their AV, and most of them will say something like "if it doesn't catch anything, then my computer is clean." Faulty logic leads to poor recommendations, and potentially computers that need more than just an AV installed. Always best to air on the side of caution, mostly because nobody really takes this side of computer security as serious as they should.
I might make light of the situation, but I focus more on things most consumers don't even know exist. Malware is peanuts compared to
Project Tempest (which now has at least one verified project following it up, and stepping up the technology). That doesn't mean we should all put on tin foil hats, but it doesn't make malware threats any less detrimental. Basic malware is more of a literal than proverbial "slippery slope." Make sense?
NunoAntunes :
And well, I have to disagree on that part you said Avast is terrible and overrated. The link you shared, they are comparing paid AV's with Avast, which is free. And it still scored really well. Plus, the false positives on a scan to your computer, you can easily look to the origin of the file and check if it is or not an actual virus, google the file or put it in quarenteine just to be sure. It's not that of a big deal. And you save big bucks (30-40€ per year).
Yes, avast is not the best if you compare it to paid antivirus but it's waay better than not having an antivirus or sticking with the microsoft crap.
My opinion comes from repairing a countless number of computers running Avast, owned by the typical "average" user. These people range from teens to 60+ years old, all types of education, and all levels of computer knowledge. Some of these people knew way more about drivers and file systems than I did, yet I was the one who had to fix their computer. Even people who understand registry keys, and modification of registry keys, had serious problems with Avast. This isn't a small sample of 3 people, this is upwards of 20 people, over the course of 5+ years. The common denominator of every computer I've fixed? The user had Avast installed, and they just let it run on its own.
What most people don't really get is that after about a month or two, the user ends up letting software just take over. Even I'm guilty of that. Unless you have good reason to check out every single threat detected, you're not going to get to it quickly at all. Either you're going to delete or quarantine, and by the time you have a problem with something on your computer, it takes much longer to fix... and then most users either start over, or ask for help. Yes, it is quite easy to do a lot of that work, but it's also a big hassle. Most people don't have computers to deal with more hassle. It's the society we live in; automation, "the best" for every category we can find, and overall trying to remove human work from the end result. It's classic huamn behaviour, and computers are not subject to anything different from that. Not to mention most computers sold go to people who probably don't know the difference between the memory in a flash drive and an SD card, let alone how to mitigate threats their AV shows them. When people freak out over internet cookies being flagged as malicious (something Avast used to do years ago), you need to expect less of the computer users, and find a better solution to the problem. Tailor the solution to the user; not the other way around.
Also, it should be duly noted the number of times I'd brought up the amount of problems that Avast has had with lab testing; namely the sheer number of false alarms they religiously have in testing. The last test published by AVC showed 77 false alarms from Avast; 6 of which were digitally signed (aka no reason to be flagged), 12 which are high prevalence, leaving 59 low level false alarms. That's pretty bad... it's the second worst False Alarm test in AVC's latest report. I don't think that's a good thing. But, take it from AVC themselves:
"False Positives (FPs) are an important measurement for AV quality. One FP report from a customer can result in large amount of engineering and support work to resolve the issue. Sometimes this can even lead to important data loss or system unavailability. Even “not significant” FPs (or FPs on old applications) deserve mention and attention because FPs are likely to be a result of principled rule detections. It just happened that the FP was on an insignificant file. The FP possibility is probably still in the product and could cause an FP again on a more significant file. Thus, they still deserve mention and still deserve to be penalised."
Sure, you're saving yourself a chunk of change, but when there are superior paid products that offer FREE antivirus options to their paid services, and their AV is literally the same AV in their paid version, just without the extra stuff (ie: firewall, browser extras, etc.), it's really not that great of an idea to go with a lesser AV, especially with the idea that you're going to spend extra time mitigating every flag when you're not very experienced. For most users, Avast is just a bad idea; the only reason many people recommend it is usually due to poor computer education.
I should also not that I've used a number of machines that contained malware of some sort that Avast didn't pick up, and the owner kept telling me "There's no viruses!" Even with hard proof, and scans run with a number of other software showing infections, the owners still claimed the computer was always fine... I just "removed things that weren't harmful," according them... and yet they invited me over to see why their computer wasn't functioning properly.
I say all this because it's very important to stress it. Remember the old phrase, "All professions are conspiracies against the laity." With computers, the typical user is not going to understand the importance of the AV they choose. There's a reason the marketplace is so vast with AV solutions, and the competition is fierce.