Bullguard Internet Security vs Comodo/AVG/Avast

I'm talking about the latest versions.

Either Bullguard Internet Security or Comodo free firewall plus either AVG or Avast anti-virus program. Which uses less resource? Which is more effective?

 

I personally use Avast and highly recommend it to anybody. I find it to be the least resource-hogging of all of your options listed. It also works very well. Of course there will be a virus here and there that get through, but you'll have that with any Anti-virus.

 

i had to fix a colleagues desktop last week with 128 trojans so ive tried a few a/v lately.

at home i used to use avg pro until last year but now use avast pro.
so i tried these 2 plus comodo on the desktop.
avast was the most thorough as it found a rootkit infection so done a background scan as well as the full system scan. just over 1 hour.
avg i gave up as 2 hours approached and the same with comodo which went past 2 hours and was heading more for 3.

lots of people also swear by microsoft security essentials.

 

I wouldn't recommend any of those for scanning. They're realtime protection. If you want proper scanning use MalwareBytes, SUPERAntiSpyware, and HitmanPro.

 

Between AVG and Avast?
My vote goes to Avast (free version). You can also give MSE a go if you want to as it's a VERY good program, but have only 1 AV installed at a time.
Even after trying newest AVG, I must say the program is still a sausage and overall seems to reduce system responsiveness.

For on-demand scanning, I'd use MBAM (free).
SAS is marginally 'better' but only because it includes cookies, and those you can easily delete via Ccleaner or manually.

I see little to no point in Comodo and Internet Security suites, as they won't really protect you from yourself.

Windows firewall that comes with Vista and 7 is just fine.

 

Just use Comodo Firewall and Defense+ with MBAM for heavy scanning and your good.

 

BullGuard is mainly rebranded BitDefender tech. Reading up on BD gives you an idea on how BG will perform.
I don't know if for instance BullGuard 2012 uses BD 2012 or BD 2011 tech.

I'd recommend Comodo/CIS though.
Read up on how to use it's HIPS ' Defense+' and the sandboxing feature.
Hungry Man has written several informative posts here about CIS so perhaps start with those to get an idea of what's what.

Imo it doesn't matter that much how much RAM is used by an AV.
You'll likely won't notice any difference between 35 MB or 60 MB usage.
For other performance numbers, check the AV-Comparatives 'Performance test' to get an idea on how the different AV's perform (Comparatives / Reviews; Performance Tests) link
A HIPS and sandboxing is much more likely to save your behind than an AV so, imo, spend most time on learning about those.

 

If you ever have questions about CIS you can feel free to ask. I've been using it for a bit and I've played around with lots of settings/ tested it out.

 

i forgot to mention.
it wasnt connected to my works network otherwise i would have been shot.
i was using the free versions of the ones above so couldnt update to the latest database.
i also used spybot and super antispywear before and after the virus scans.
still 1 rootkit virus that i couldnt get rid off.

 

Yeah OK (negative rep), if people bother to read it, it has a help page..

 

Lol...
So, what, people aren't allowed to express their personal opinions that are subject to change on the matter?

But seriously, just how exactly do you expect a security program to protect a user that intentionally, or accidentally messes something up?
My reply was focused more towards using common sense, rather than to say anything negative about Comodo.
In my personal opinion, it's unnecessary because Windows Firewall is more than enough in addition to an AV that works as it should.
Why clutter the system with programs that do the same thing which Windows already come equipped with?
For a lack of better expression, the extra software effectively becomes bloatware (the same type of software that manuf. put onto a pre-installed laptop and has the same functions that Windows has by default).

 

Actually CIS will protect you from yourself.

If a program is known safe nothing is done to it.
If a program is known bad than it is blocked.
If a program is unknown than it is scanned by cloud-heuristics, checked for buffer overflow attack, checked against the cloud signatures, and then sandboxed so that even if it isn't safe it won't touch your system.

All three of these things require literally 0 user interaction and are default settings. You will then be able to run the program and if it's legit it'll work fine and you'll see it's legit and if it isn't than you'll see that it's not and you can delete it from your sandbox.

Just like an antivirus, which will automatically quarantine a suspicious file except with Comodo you still get to run it.

I agree that Windows Firewall is enough. Comodo's Firewall only provides outbound and a few more features, nothing too special.

But the sandboxing and cloud-based scanning are most definitely not built into Windows. The only ground that Comodo covers that is also covered by Windows is the inbound firewall.

Plus Comodo works as a system hardening tool by allowing you to sandbox specific programs.

 

I tried Comodo, but just did not fully understand how it worked. I happen to use the same setup as quoted, and have been zapped once or twice due to my own stupidity - clicking on links with cutie pics. For advanced users I am sure Comodo is effective, but AVG - MB and win firewall are intuitive and effective for new/average users. (Plus regular system imaging).

 

I wouldn't recommend using Comodo to most people because it's just got so much in it that it's difficult for the average user to know what's what.

 

On the other hand, new/average users are the ones who need the most protection. Appeasing the lowest common denominator of security always results in gaping security holes. At a minimum, a sandbox is a good way to protect a user from himself after removing admin privileges.

 

I think the sandbox breaks too much for it to be useful for little newbies. I'd disable it.

Instead I'd leave the rest of defense+ on and sandbox manually what I could to harden the computer. I'd also turn the firewall off and leave it to Windows.

 

I did try Comodo free firewall with Avast free AV and both complemented well.

Just remember to use the basic "firewall" feature and disable the rest of the bundled security features. Moreover, stick with "safe mode".

 

The other security features are the best part =p

 

Yes if you'll choose to use Comodo as a stand alone. It won't really work if you're running another AV along side with it.

 

What? Comodo works fine with every AV I've tried. In addition, regardless of all the emphasis placed on it, Antivirus software is the absolute last resort when all other security measures, including your firewall, hips, sandbox, uac, and common sense, have utterly failed. To turn off the other features is absurd. Just use the windows firewall if that's all you want.

 

^+1.
Why on earth would you only install the Comodo FW and not it's HIPS as a minimum extra?
And I've never had any issues with the free Avira, Avast, MSE or Panda PCAV versions, combined with Comodo suite/CIS (minus it's AV).

 

I used MSE and Comodo Defense+/Firewall for a while. Worked fine.