AV-Comparatives: Performance test April 2016

Chart: http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2015&month=10&sort=1#

Preview:




PDF: http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/avc_per_201604_en.pdf

@Papusan @Ethrem @Mr. Fox @downloads @toughasnails @hmscott @bloodhawk @godfafa_kr

Surprising comeback from ESET after it has been in the mid-range performance level for more than 4 years, its getting lighter just like the old days and I also tried the v10 Alpha it's even lighter.

Avira at the top just like last quarter, solid performance from Kaspersky/Avast as usual...

Windows Defender/Mcafee/Trend Micro are a big no no for people seeking a light AV that doesn't cripple their machine.

Unlike AV-TEST, these performance tests according to my experience really represent the true story.

 

AVAST still looking good - not the best when considered as AV alone, but according to my test it's the best solution overall when you are looking for an AV + Firewall. AVAST Premier uses barely more RAM than AVAST AV alone and far less than any separate AV and firewall solution I have tested, yet offers far more control than Windows firewall alone.
This might not be particularly important for those with new machines, but it definitely is for those with older notebooks and with convertible laptops.
Thanks for posting.

Microsoft seems to suck at this game - they used to make something that detected nothing at all yet had no impact on performance (commonly known as "not working at all"), now they have dramatically improved their detection rate and as it seems impact on the system.

 

The new Windows 10 Insider Preview actually shuts off Defender if you have Avast. Its a nice performance bump and a welcome change to being forced to use Defender no matter what.

Avast has always been my go to. Never any problems and the gaming mode means I never get interrupted.

 

3 questions for you chief:

1) I have a license for Avast Pro AV. Does the Avast Internet Security slow down web browsing and/or torrent downloads due to its firewall or is it ok just like the Windows Firewall

2) Is the Windows Firewall good enough or would you recommend a full suite as opposed to an AV only? I read a year back that the Windows Firewall is actually better than most 3rd party firewalls but now with Windows 10 and all the telemetry, I am not sure anymore.

3) About Windows Defender, @tilleroftheearth planted a bug in my head when he said "Windows Defender is the least intrusive/least buggy as it is integrated in the system. But I could always feel a performance hit when using it. I know it improved big time with Windows 10 and now has PUP detections via registry hack which I posted in the Windows 10 Tweaks & Fixes, but how do people say it's light when these kind of tests always show that it is on the high performance hit level?

 

@Phoenix

1) I have a license (two in fact) for Avast Premier and I have noticed no slowdowns due to firewall. Even though I have previously discovered that some low-level firewall drivers limit the speed if your connection is fast enough (Comodo and Symantec in my tests). Not on purpose - they just aren't very well written and can't handle it.

2) Widows firewall might be OK but it has close to nothing in terms of usable interface (I mean usable, not user). For example I want to be asked when a new application attempts to connect to internet - always. My computer, my decision.
Avast firewall is half-decent. Half-decent because it's nowhere near Outpost Firewall, but then again most users would be annoyed into uninstalling Outpost. And yet another downside of Avast firewall - it does not have a proper system firewall i.e. it does not mind if an application uses another application (the latter of which is allowed to do so) to connect to the internet.
I discovered that Acronis TrueImage checks for updates using svchost.exe which I find distressing. Yet Avast does not find it so - svchost is allowed to connect to the Internet after all, so where is the problem? So I'm not saying it's great but it offers some degree of control and at the cost of a very low footprint.

3) Windows Defender is neither very good in terms of detection (although now, it's at least respectable) nor is it very light. Without attempting to offend anyone (honestly I'm not trying to do this) I always found people using Windows Defender to be cheapskates.
"It's not good, but it's free" should be it's tag line. I even remember someone in this forum writing "paying for antivirus software is so 90's". Well being a n Ebenezer Scrooge is so nineteenth century...

Anyway - Avast firewall is not the greatest but unlike Comodo and Symantec and something else I have tested it does not have a performance hit on your connection. While it's not nearly as good as Outpost, it's also not nearly as annoying and it uses far less RAM.
Also while I'm on the subject of Avast Premier - I do like the fact that it not only monitors if you software is up to date but also can update it for you silently. I mean all sort of apps from WinRAR, through IrfanView, Flash, FF, Skype and so on are monitored and installed in the background - no installer starts or anything. It either does it on its own or asks you, and if you allow it, does it on its own (you can ignore updates for certain apps if you want though).
I find that refreshing because these days every application wants to have its own service to check for updates and wants access to internet and quite frankly I don't see a reason for that.

 

Thanks a lot for this insight! Wish I could rep you again but I can't for now.

I might end up upgrading my Avast AV Pro to IS as allowing an app through Windows Firewall is very tiresome, some apps appear in the main window while most of them I have to manually go to the folder of the app and find the EXE then allow it. This is so 1990. I also tried Windows Firewall Control but its recommended setting to only allow apps to connect upon request is dumb because when an app tries to connect, it doesn't give me a popup to allow or deny it, it simply doesn't allow it to connect until I manually find the app by browsing to its location, this is no different than the stupid Windows Firewall with the exception that it blocks all apps from connecting which can be very tedious to sit and allow all the services/apps you need to connect.

Yes, I agree about Windows Defender, it ticks me off when people's only defence against it is "hey it's free and it comes with Windows "

Finally, regarding the Avast updater, I have always not installed it thinking it was some bloatware, but now that you mention how beautifully it works, you are tempting me to use it.

 

Sure, Windows Defender (as all A/V software, of course) does have a hit on system performance. But system performance (as all performance important enough to measure...) is not just benchmark 'scores' with A/V on/off. To me, it is all the aspects of the performance hit, if any, and any maintenance and other manual intervention needed to keep it going for the life of the system it is installed on.

At a higher level, being free and being from the O/S manufacturer is another bonus that every other A/V that requires a subscription (or not) can't compare with either. Paid for A/V software have a built in reason to not want a 'perfect' A/V product in existence. A free solution from the O/S manufacturer themselves has the exact opposite goal.

Showing how close to danger you are 'all the time' on third party A/V is nothing but bs marketing at it's best. And the proof of that to me is that Windows Defender (along with MSE before that...) has shown no virus' it couldn't contain since I began using it with Windows 7 so long ago (yeah; since ~2009...).

Being a 'cheapskate' has nothing to do with it. Having a slightly faster system but needing to take time out of my workflows to update/upgrade A/V software and/or schedule and/or run scans is a backward step to my productivity, overall. A computer user that doesn't click on everything under their mouse pointer, in the middle of 2016, doesn't need anything more. And paying for something when you don't need it is not a 90's thing... it is just dumb (in any time period).

I occasionally revisit my assumptions (some of which are stated here) on A/V programs and when time and circumstances permit, I test the latest ones. Who knows? I may change my tune in the very near future too...

But given that MS has a vested interest to keep Windows Defender at some minimum level of security and performance while every other A/V author doesn't... I don't see this situation changing soon.

Also, the bloatware nature of having yet another program check for my other programs and utilities for updates is a turnoff, not a bonus to me.

Previously, I have run a few systems without any A/V for months inside my closed lab(s), protected not only by robust router settings and other hardware and ISP decisions (stay away from cable ISP's...) and yeah, they were much more responsive and productive to work on. However, as soon as I needed to use those systems beyond my internal controls (onsite, at a random client, for example...), I needed hours and sometimes days to setup A/V and do a complete scan before removing them from my premises and letting them back on my network(s) again. Any productivity improvement I saw quickly evaporated in that scenario and that quickly put a stop to that madness.

I pay whatever the market price is for anything I need to get my job done and keep my data (my own and my client's) safe.

Paying for A/V is not one of those requirements and hasn't been for the last 7 years or so.