Kaspersky vs Bitdefender

[Maxarini]

Kaspersky vs Bitdefender. Which one should I get. I am running windows 8.1

Thanks in advance

 

[robboroom]

Bitdefender has constantly been a pain, you always know it's there, and it's slowed down my computer (not just mine, I installed it on 3 laptops as well!) to the extent of being really annoying (and I have Dell Alienware with a 6 core processor).

Everytime you open explorer to see files, it's takes forever before the files are shown as it's scanning them. When you open the internet browser you get these busy icons on the goggle serach page while it scans the links.

Sounds like you're having some issues that either Kaspersky didn't resolve, and BD is trying to, or you didn't remove Kaspersky properly, and now BD is actually trying to work through the crap the is left over from the Kaspersky install.

If you don't remove your original AV software properly, then you're going to run into problems with every AV software you install after it. Whatever the case is, something needs to be addressed on yoru computer. That isn't a common problem with BD, unless there is a preexisting issue.

Uhhm, I don't exactly know what makes you so starry-eyed about BD, that you decide to reduce BD's issues to a Kaspersky deinstallation fault.

I must say I fully agree with Welsh Dragon. Bought Bitdefender Total Security one and a half years ago with a 2-year license. With still six months on my license I have decided I will pay for another suite.

One that doesn't reduce my laptop boot speed to a crawl (from 1 minute to 4), one that doesn't always have freaking issues with Steam (every Steam update I have to delete the old rule and make a new one, on two computers, and off late, my desktop won't even run Steam properly with the rule, it will only connect to my profile and the store if I disable the firewall), over the past two weeks it has been blocking my email client on my desktop computer (despite a rule) AND on both computers it constantly whines about safety problems, because my definitions haven't been updated, despite it being on auto-update. So I have to manually update the virus defs on two computers.

I REALLY don't know how BD gets all the high scores. Maybe the reviewers should actually try using the products they review for a while. It is a stinker of a product.

 

[digidong]

As of right now i would recommend bitdefender over kaspersky. I've been using kaspersky since 2007, but switched to bitdefender about 3 month ago, reason being that kaspersky PURE has some really high latencies (execution time) and it made my computer feel really laggy and sluggish, this is on win8 and 8.1, the problem didn't seem to be there on Vista, but i almost never played a game on vista. So i read a few reviews and saw that bitdefender was just as good as PURE when it comes to detecting stuff, so i gave it a try and my computer starts much much faster now and there are no weird lag and sluggish performance when i'm playing games. Also ran xperf after installing bitdefender and latencies are much lower now, except for hard page faults they seem to be about the same, but that doesn't seem to affect gaming.

@robboroom ( May 31, 2015 2:25:15 PM) - Maybe you should format and reinstall OS and protection cause something is very wrong with your computer, there is not a single problem with bitdefender and steam or with any email client or service for that matter. Maybe you can't figure out how to set up rules and use them properly?

 

[Lee-1992]

I used bitdefender a few months ago but I believe that my free trial ended, I wanted to scan my pc the other day so I used Kaspersky, it removed 3 files for me as I believed that malware had gotten through. However, and someone can correct me if I wrong, I believe that kaspersky isn't optimal for blocking malware.
The way I see it though, if you have time and think you have malware why not use both, that way even the sneakiest malware can't hide.

Yeah.... about that logic...

The problem with using an AV as protection for malware is that AVs are not designed for blocking malware. AV software is designed to block/detect viruses; viruses are written differently from malware, and throw flags in different ways. While one might be better at detecting malware, it's pretty pointless to use two pieces of software that are designed for virus detection for malware detection; it's just not going to be very effective, even if they catch something.

There's also the simple fact that there was study published (recently) that pointed out the majority of malware infections at major companies went undetected by their anti-malware software. Not to mention, the likelihood of your AV/AM software actually catching everything is not in the user's favour. When there is one infection found, there's most likely another one that that wasn't found.

Just saying...

You obviously didnt get the memo that Viruses are under the "malware" umbrella? Malware is a shorthand for malicious software - viruses, trojans, worms, keyloggers, Registry hacks, hack tools all come under the malware umbrella title.

 

[Skylyne]

I know I'm a bit late in asking this, but are you having problems with the Kerio hardware, software, or both?

I mean kerio software "kerio vpn client" when I connect through kerio my firewall doesn't work but as I remember it worked for cisco anyconnect but not kerio and probably there are other type of vpns that bittdefener doesn't work with

I'm not sure but I think I had the same problem with open vpn as well but I'm sure it doesn't work with kerio

Definitely something that should be looked into on a deeper level, then. Probably a firewall setting, or there's some incompatibility with the software combination.

Uhhm, I don't exactly know what makes you so starry-eyed about BD, that you decide to reduce BD's issues to a Kaspersky deinstallation fault.

I must say I fully agree with Welsh Dragon. Bought Bitdefender Total Security one and a half years ago with a 2-year license. With still six months on my license I have decided I will pay for another suite.

One that doesn't reduce my laptop boot speed to a crawl (from 1 minute to 4), one that doesn't always have freaking issues with Steam (every Steam update I have to delete the old rule and make a new one, on two computers, and off late, my desktop won't even run Steam properly with the rule, it will only connect to my profile and the store if I disable the firewall), over the past two weeks it has been blocking my email client on my desktop computer (despite a rule) AND on both computers it constantly whines about safety problems, because my definitions haven't been updated, despite it being on auto-update. So I have to manually update the virus defs on two computers.

I REALLY don't know how BD gets all the high scores. Maybe the reviewers should actually try using the products they review for a while. It is a stinker of a product.

If I was starry-eyed, I'd have been paying for BD... which I am not. I'm actually running Webroot right now. Also, I have one basic question: with all your problems, have you contacted the BD customer support for help with your problems? The reason I ask is because it all sounds extremely basic, and your problems sound like a software configuration problem. Unless BD did the installation themselves, then it's possible you might have tweaked the settings in a way that might have caused your problems. Just a thought.

Also, take note that a number of independent labs actually do real world testing; however, simulating every individual's experiences are impossible. You may have something going on that is relatively unique in a few ways? I wouldn't know, and I'm sure you wouldn't know either, but there are thousands of situations possible, and a lab won't be able to cover them all. The vast majority of users with BD seem to be pleased, and have no significant complaints. Depending on how you've handled the troubleshooting of your issues, I'd say there are a number of possibilities for what the cause is.

Why do I defend BD? Because I've actually used it, under a pretty good real-world simulation for my own testing purposes, and even with highly problematic circumstances it didn't cause a real problem. I also know that when previous installations of AV software are improperly uninstalled, it can easily cause the new install to have some serious problems. If you know how AV's work, you'd understand why I would naturally think a previous AV de-installation caused your issues, and possibly caused Welsh Dragon's issues. I've been working with computers that have had various numbers of previously installed AV's causing problems, and the problems range in severity; many times, it causes similar problems to what Welsh Dragon had (yours, not so likely). As someone who has done computer clean up, virus removal, and OS optimization, freelancing for a number of years, I have enough experience to say it looks likes a similar problem. Unless I had your computer directly in front of me, there's no exact way to determine the problem, as computers have a near infinite amount of possibilities to create very similar problems; but my personal opinion on what the cause is shouldn't be tossed aside because you've developed a distaste for the software under less than ideal circumstances. When someone has nothing but problems, and doesn't figure out exactly what the cause is, that shouldn't mean the software is automatically junk; it just was incorporated under poor circumstances (which is not what any software is designed for).

The reason BD has a good rating with independent testing companies is because lab computers that do the testing have been thoroughly checked over, and the software installs are closely monitored (at least, that's how it's supposed to be done). If I can scrounge the money up for my own AV testing company, you bet I'll release every spec imagined with the reports... but most companies don't, because most people won't even bother reading that section, and it isn't entirely relevant to most users (who are typically more "average" users, with minimal comprehensive knowledge, using the tests to determine if it's a quality product). Also, BD gains a good reputation because of the way it's designed, how effective it is with test batches of viruses, and overall user-friendly GUI; it is rarely graded under many other circumstances, and I've yet to see any graded on performance with gaming-specific applications, because that isn't the only market they want to appeal to.

You obviously didnt get the memo that Viruses are under the "malware" umbrella? Malware is a shorthand for malicious software - viruses, trojans, worms, keyloggers, Registry hacks, hack tools all come under the malware umbrella title.

Actually, I did... that was in my early years. However, using the term "malware" with most people typically relates to the rest of the malware group. While viruses are a part of that eqaution, most people don't entirely associate that as such. In fact, many of the security guys I've chatted with don't use the terms malware and virus synonymously; although, that is just my personal informal experience. It's one of those terms that has been twisted enough to affect the professional lingo as well, for better or worse. It's kind of adopted a new definition, which basically just excludes viruses. I'd think it's due to people being so focused on viruses over the years, and the rest of the malware tools were dumped into another category called "malware" without really understanding the term. Whatever the case, that's what I've encountered with informal discussion.

Also, when talking about "anti-malware software," typically those particular types of software are not looking for viruses as hard as they would other types of malware. The same goes for the majority of AV software; it typically focuses on viruses, and malware is just a secondary thing that kind of takes the back seat for importance. If you used only MBAM, there are pretty good chances you will not catch all viruses, even if viruses fall under the technical title of "malware" for the nerds. This is because it's focused on other types of malware, in a similar way to how most AV's handle viruses. Sure, you could try to find a product that handles the real, technical definition of malware, but typically those wares don't have enough resources to handle that kind of protection. It's a lot of work to cover everything, hence the faulty discrimination between AM and AV software.

 

[Paul_2]

I'm considering kis 2016 or bis 2016 and don't rely to so called "independent" lab tests, so came across this comparison which looks at least honest written here looks like kaspersky 2016 doesn't support windows 10, doesn't have auto-pilot mode and profiles. I think Bitdefender 2016 will be the better choice, when released ofcourse

 

[CWEric]

Kaspersky is also automatic. Both are similar suits. Kaspersky does a poor job detecting pup but I wouldn't trust Bitdefender to work properly out of the gate when many users has issues with the current program.

 

[strikersz7]

Kaspersky is much better than bitdefender. i am part of security technical (corporate) and we trust kaspersky.

kaspersky not only blocking virus or other malware but it can prevent attack using exploit technique (attacked open port).

i already test exploit to other server that use kaspersky and well done kaspersky can block it.

exploitation is the highest our concern !! because when the attacker already get your computer using exploit technique , none of antivirus cannot detect it because it running in memory not create some file or other in hard disk. so the attacker can control your computer like administrator. you won't know if you've been infiltrated.

you can prevent this exploit using IPS.

 

[MWOLFMAN80]

I would go with Kaspersky over Bitdefender for Windows 8.1 personally. I have used Bitdefender with over a handful of 8.1 pro Installations and it doesn't seem as compatible; as far as disabling the windows firewall like most antiviruses tend to do and replace it with their own. Provided you use a version with a firewall included. Bitdefender is a pain "At Times" to uninstall as well for some reason on Windows 8.1. As far as catching malware like "Pup" both have failed alot for me, where malwarebytes picked them up as I have it installed with both when I used them.

 

[Edwardw35]

Bitdefender is a better than Kaspersky.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Yes it is and now Trend Micro is at the top with them.