Antivirus Security Shootout: Microsoft Vs. Symantec Vs. McAfee Vs. Kaspersky Discussion

We've reviewed four popular antivirus security products from Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee and Kaspersky over the past few months. So how did they all stack up when we put them to the test? In this antivirus software buyers guide, we reveal the name of the winner ofour latestsoftware security shootout, and how we got the scores.

Read the full content of this Article: Antivirus Security Shootout: Microsoft Vs. Symantec Vs. McAfee Vs. Kaspersky

Related Articles:

• McAfee Releases 'All Access' Security for PCs, Macs, Tablets & Phones
• McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2011 Review
• Norton AntiVirus (NAV) 2011 Review
• Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) Review
• Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2011 Review

 

Actually it would have been good if you had included Eset Nod32 antivirus in this review?

 

I really like MSE. I've never used the current version of Norton, but with previous versions, it never let me forget it was working. It wasn't very "invisible," if that makes sense. What I love about MSE is how invisible it is. Updates are rare and easy-to-handle, and it doesn't seem to affect the machine's overall performance. Sure, maybe scans aren't as fast as other programs, but that doesn't bother me at all.

And the price is right. No up-front costs, no subscription fees. Just love MSE.

 

I agree. I have dealt with Norton and McAfee at work. Those have to have been the most intrusive things in the IT world.

I discovered MSE a couple of years ago and haven't looked back since. A buddy of mine (who collects alot of 'stuff' across the internet) brought his removable HD over and it had one of those autorun viruses on it. I had AVG on the machine and it bypassed it and cause me hours of headscratching, finally combofix took care of it. The following week I discovered MSE and put it on my machine. My friend came over with his diseased drive (I had autorun disabled this time), but it probably wouldn't have mattered. MSE discovered it (I think it was confiker or something like that) and cleaned it right off. I haven't had a virus problem since and I have put it on 20 of my own computers, and at least 10 or so friends computers that I have fixed or cleaned up.

 

I've been using Panda Cloud for awhile now and never had any problems. Anyone else use it or have any experience with it?

 

I think, this whole review is kinda not objective :/
that is - no memory usage or processor load/disk-access frequency comparison..

anyway, like other commentators, I also like MSE very much, for price, small memory and processor load footprint, and for being not intrusive.

Before MSE I used free version of Avira AntiVir, but got bored with frequent popping advertisement windows

 

Indeed, not much discussion of intrusiveness. Also, why these particular four? They're not the top 4 antivirus software by market share or anything. ESET, AVIRA, etc. deserve some love too!

To Mitlov: Norton's rep for being bloated and a huge drain on system resources was well deserved until a couple of years ago, but the latest versions are really quite good and unobstrusive.

 

Yeah, the three factors I really care about are intrusiveness (both pop-ups that interrupt you and resource drains that interfere with what you're doing), effectiveness, and price. I personally couldn't give a rip about differences in interface, installation process (so long as you don't need an associate's degree to install it), or scan speed. Just my $0.02.

 

Starting from Norton 2009, its intrusiveness/bloatedness has been far reduced from before (was a ground-up rewrite from the 2008 version).

When I used it (for the '09, '10, and '11 versions), I noticed that Norton used less system resources (combining all processes), both RAM and especially CPU, than MSE, Kaspersky ('10, '11), McAfee ('09), and even ESET SS (Ver. 4).

I barely received any notifications at all (similar to MSE). Kaspersky and McAfee, on the other hand, were ultra-paranoid and alerted me for everything (most of which were false-positives).

During file transfers and large file manipulation in particular, Norton and ESET SS made the smallest dent in performance, while funnily enough, I noticed that Kaspersky added the largest overhead.

During updates, MSE and ESET SS used noticeable CPU resources (well, noticeable only when monitoring or using it on my old Averatec), while Norton's very frequent pulse updates made no impact at all.

Scan speed is also extremely fast in Norton, about on par with Kaspersky from my testing.

So in conclusion: From my experiences, if you insist on paying for an AV/IS, Norton is probably one of, if not your best option (particularly with its frequent $0.00 AR deals at Fry's--they'll take competitors' UPCs for their upgrade rebate as well). Otherwise, MSE is probably the way to go simply because it's easy and works perfectly fine.

 

I used to use AVG, but it would really cripple system performance when starting up and undergoing its frequent updates.

I've switched to MSE on Windows 7, and like others have said, it is not a bother. I honestly can barely tell it is there.

 

I use AVG myself. Every year I purchase a 3-license key from purplus.com for about 20$ CDN, which is a superb deal/price.

I would of liked to see AVG in the "shootout"

Personally, I'd never use Norton/McAfee. Reason being that when I did try them quite some time ago, they did not detect trojans/viruses on my computer. AVG and Kaspersky always have from my experience.

My set-up as of now is:
- AVG Internet Security 2011
- Firefox with addons:
AdBlockPlus, NoScript, WOT, McAfee Site Advisor, and Keylog Scrambler

 

Eh, there's a reason these security solutions need to be reviewed every year. Norton a few years ago was NOTHING like it is today.

While I'm an ESET Smart Security user, I'd take Norton or Kaspersky any day of the week. Those are highly polished products that perform very well overall.

MSE does well in my comparison articles too, but I've personally seen it let through a few pieces of malware on my family's computer. I have since moved them to ESET or Kaspersky. MSE is just not proactive enough.

 

Norton IS + Malwarebyte + spybot = best protection

Biggest mistake people make is they buy Norton AV alone and think that is enough, or buy the bloated Norton 360...both are bad moves..

Always get NIS and its free after rebate every year :/

 

I used to think MSE was great (especially the free part), but here's what it's let slip through lately...


I need a more proactive scanner that will stop this mess up front. At this point I don't care if I have to pay for it, but it should block this stuff before it installs on my system.

 

That's why I recommend Avast! instead of MSE.

 

Are you sure they are not false positives?
Just because some overzealous Anti-Virus start flagging files doesn't make it a malware.

 

Everyone seems to be forgetting Comodo Internet Security. 100% free, you only get bugged once to get the version with full tech support (that + online backup is the only difference between paid and free versions). One of the best firewalls around, sandboxing feature, users have unbelievable control, and using about 21 mb RAM + 0-2% CPU usage.

I combine this with an on-demand scanner - malware bytes. Top protection, 100% free.

 

Seriously? Dude I had two fake anti-virus malware programs grab my system at the same time. Sucker got caught in a continual boot cycle that was resolved using an Avira Rescue CD.

I've dumped MSE and I'm presently trying Avast free. @ niharjhatn, thanks for the Comodo suggestion. Honestly I've seen little about it in regards to performance reviews, but will look into it.

 

If you check Matousec's firewall tests, Comodo ALWAYS scores 100%, leading some to believe the results might be cooked

I think a while back, there was a bit of a scare of a particular rootkit bypassing the firewall, but apparently as long as you kept the anti-virus component on, you would be protected.

I'd definitely recommend it over say MSE, as MSE has now also started to get a bit bloated, and slow, and the cleaning in MSE is horrible.

I had a subscription to AVAST-IS a year or so ago, and it is great software, but with the free version you are ofcourse missing the firewall, which is quite crucial in terms of security.

I was kinda like you - never paid heed to security... but then got hit by a nasty virus, and have become pretty pedantic about my security since

 

Any other suggestions for antivirus/Internet Security reviews? So far I've suggested the following to our editor:
-Comodo
-Avast!
-ESET

They will all of course be done in a format like the other ones. I don't have the resources to do intensive anti-virus testing, so basically I check to see how proactive the suites are. More or less I'm trying to see how alert they are to threats.

I have a review of VIPRE coming up.

 

I've heard a lot of good reviews about ESET. I used to use MSE but recently switched to NIS 2012. Yes it is not free like MSE but I feel much more secured now. I feel its also lighter than Kaspersky. I've used them both and I preferred kaspersky to previous versions of NIS, but now I'd say NIS 2012 is better than kaspersky KIS.

The Best 2012 Security Suites | PCMag.com

Remember NIS 2012 is a big leap from NIS 2011. UI changed, lighter, better, etc. A lot of good reviews for NIS 2012.

Norton AntiVirus 2012 - Free software downloads and software reviews - CNET Download.com

VIPRE Antivirus 2012 - Free software downloads and software reviews - CNET Download.com

I have keys for Norton, Kaspersky, Trend, ESET NOD32, McAfee for sale. Guaranteed legit keys, usually those are 100-180 days key (depends on what program) price is $3-$5 for 180 days depends on the program. You can buy 2 keys and u're good for 1 year. Anyone wants one please contact me key will be sent within 15 hours.

 

^^^
No offense, but sounds really fishy to me... all other subscriptions are 1 year minimum, don't understand how it can be legit and 100 - 180 days

 

Not until you try it

As a consumer buying retail package, no you cant.

But if you own a large corporation, and want to buy keys for your employees, that's another story.