Pretty suspicious to name Bitdefender as #1 and then run a Bitdefender ad. That is super bad editorial policy, no matter how much you claim independence. It is not believable. Sorry. It is a huge perceived conflict of interest. Also, the performance test is invalid. You need to have 15 open applications including Word, PowerPoint and Excel, plus Safari, Mail, Photos, GarageBand, iMovie and several others. Then run your test. Ideally, you would use a bench mark program, instead of using a stop watch against an app. Unix is a priority-driven multitasking system, so your performance test really makes no sense. But, I wish you well.
Ex Avast internet security user. Had avast for around a decade now. Had an issue with a one month old computer and called Avast for support. My subscription wasn't going to be up till September so I thought they would help. I thought wrong. I was having a UI failed to load error. The first person went through my computer and said that Avast was working properly and it was due to a bad windows update and they could fix it if I signed up for another year and added Avast total care. I then was transferred to the supervisor and was told that they could only fix the issue if I added Total Care and one year Avast and my computer was unprotected and he needed the money now. I can see charging for the repair if I was using the free version, but not when you spend around $100/year for 3 of their products. The free version worked on my laptop but not the paid version and only stopped working over the weekend. Kind of angry about the situation as it seems like legalized Ransom-ware to me so I am done with them.
Yes, I know this article is old, but wanted to add a heads up for anyone currently searching on free anti-malware. As of today, the newest build of Bitdefender has informed me that it is now incompatible with Malwarebytes and insists I remove it. Since the latter has proven itself more times than I can count, even with an anti-virus program installed, and the former has never made a single peep, Anti-Malware stays and Bitdefender goes, simple as that. If Bitdefender learns to play nicely I might think about re-installing, until then, I'll look elsewhere for that particular layer of protection.
I have no issues with Bitdefender free and if you configure it, it wont nag you but it does use more resources then if you were to just crank the settings up in windows firewall, windows defender and put ad guard on Edge Browser you shouldn't have to many issues. I sure don't. I am here, all my machines build 1703 Edge browser only with ad-guard extension with custom firewall and defender settings and I have 2 laptops 4 desktops. I tried to use the latest Bitdefender Free edition and it just taxed my resources a bit more then I like I want constant snappy bloat less speed and Edge is smoother faster when you disable flash player in advanced settings screw flash if a sites uses it I don't use that site period. Any other browser currently since a few updates ago on chrome turned it to crap and several updates ago for firefox. Wont bother with broken browsers like Opera and any others.
First, I don't think av's are a waste of $$. Been repairing computers since 1980 and remember version 1.0 of the Norton utilities
They all work to some extent, usually pretty good. Any AV is better than none, especially for the clueless and their bad internet habits from a gay attorney
and his constant porn downloads on his Mac with clients files to the small business person at a home office with all the social apps running alongside their accounting app.
What's missing from your reviews are the free AV apps that work as well or better than the paid ones on your comparisons.
I find that the completely free Avast and Malwarebytes for Mac do a great job (perhaps the best job) while limiting impact on the processing engine.
All my Mac clients run Avast for real time plus Malwarebytes for when a lightning fast scan is needed.
I guess Tom's Guide Staff still recommends Kaspersky Internet Security software even though it is not a trusted software company. I personally would not use Russian Software just on a matter of principle. That being said, using it to secure my computer makes no sense at all.
For about three years now, I have been avoiding smart phones. Don't get me wrong; I am not afraid or dislike the tech. I just spend so much time with my regular work on computers and online that I didn't want the distraction of a 'tiny computer in my pocket'. It really bothers me to see how people stand around in bank links, at the bus stop, the check out at the grocery store--looking at their damn phones! For the love of humanity! LOOK AROUND AND TALK TO PEOPLE! LOL
That being said, I finally caved, because I couldn't receive photos and so on from family/friends. (SIGH). I had been out of the loop as it were, so I just went with what the phone came with. I had DFNDR and liked it OK, but after reading your review of Norton's "Freemium' version--I bailed on DFNDR! I actually just uninstalled the one and added Norton and it's going through set up as I type this. Thanks again for your always excellent reviews.
The support of the software team does matter. Both BitDefender and Kaspersky are a hassle to Indian users whereas QuickHeal is excellent. If ever the IS approaches me with a request to provide them with some people for their shooting practice, I will recommend the staff of the Indian BitDefender franchise. They are such a worthless lot. Since none can give 100% protection, a software with a lower rating but better support is always better. Now I am saddled with a Kaspersly product. QuickHeal is a lot costlier, but you have peace of mind.
BitDefender? If support is evaluated, no Indian will agree with you. Given an option, I would send the staff of their Indian franchise to IS camps in Syria or Afghanistan. Kaspersky's franchise in India too is infested with pests. QuickHeal is costlier for us, we can't afford it; but their service is excellent. Now I am saddled with Kaspersky.
(The article is dated Oct 12, 2017, but many comments here are older. Some of them need to be removed).
Shouldn't you take down Kapersky at this point? Considering that they've provided security backdoors for Russian Hackers to get into US Government sites?
1) It is illegal for US government to shut down Kaspersky in Russia, but US can banned Kaspersky from doing business in America.
2) I don't agree with US agencies, experts, and their governments blame Kaspersky. Hackers can hide their location and using Kaspersky name to fake the attacker's identity.
3) US Propaganda in the face.
4) First is China when it come to security because not a lot of people trust Qihoo 360 Total Security or any security product anymore because China obviously, and now is Russia. Who's going to be next victim?