tazzca :
Why is there such a discrepancy for antivirus software? Some say kaspersky is #1, some say McAfee is #1, and there are more if you are willing to look.
It basically depends on the weight you give for each aspect of the software -- protection, system slowdown, pricing, extra features, ease of use. We rank protection first, then system impact, then extra features, then ease of use, then pricing (if two products are otherwise more or less the same).
But it can get even further into the weeds than that. Should the number of false positives an antivirus product detects be counted as a negative? (I think it should.) Should consumer antivirus software be expected to stop highly targeted nation-state attacks that few people will ever face? (I'm not sure.) Should blocking malware from installing count for more than neutralizing installed malware so that it does nothing? (The end result seems the same to me.)
From our point of view, Kaspersky offers the best all-around Windows antivirus software. But its low-end offering skimps a bit on useful extra features like a password manager, so we pick Bitdefender at that price point simply because it has those features and its malware protection is just a hair behind Kaspersky's.
Trend Micro does a very good job of blocking malware, but often at a high performance cost during scans that you don't get with Kaspersky or Bitdefender. McAfee used to have not-so-great malware protection, but it's turned that around and now is on a par with the best, but it still has a somewhat heavy system load.
The overall truth is that any one of these four brands will protect your Windows system well. But since we're in the business of reviewing them, we have to rank them. and the ranking can often come down to small issues.
Hope that makes sense.
/www.pcmag.com/commentary/356214/should-you-believe-the-rumors-about-kaspersky-lab
Facebook
Twitter