Internet Security Suites Comparison

I did a ISS comparison so I thought I should share it. This is a performance impact comparison and only a basic one. I DLed most represented ISSes, IMO, and wanted to see what impact do they have on Windows start up, memory and scan time. This does not have to be the same on your comp but it should be close to that.

First I have to explain... Initial memory is after start up, after memory is after superfetch finishes it's thing, the lowest possible memory occupation, when everything goes to page files that can go there.

First start is right after start up, restart after installation. Restart is second restart and is faster BC superfetch "fetches" files that are needed for start up and are from the new installed ISS.

Scan time I guess is self explanatory. First is W7 with no ISS or AV whatsoever.

Windows 7
Initial memory - 720MB
After memory - 610MB
First start - 34s
Restart - 29s
scan N/A

Microsoft Security Essentials
Initial memory - 850MB
After memory - 738MB
First start - 39s
Restart - 33s
scan 222000 / 21' = 10571fpm(files per min)

BitDefender Internet Security 2010
Initial memory - 800MB
After memory - 640MB
First start - 41s
Restart - 36s
scan 179756 / 18'35" = 9664fpm

Kaspersky Internet Security 2010
Initial memory - 773MB
After memory - 670MB
First start - 46s
Restart - 39s
scan 133678 / 10'43" = 12493fpm

G Data Internet Security 2010
Initial memory - 1020MB
After memory - 910MB
First start - 52s
Restart - 39s
scan 67337 / 19' = 3544fpm

Norton™ Internet Security 2010
Initial memory - 818MB
After memory - 740MB
First start - 1' 36s
Restart - 1' 14s
scan 131856 / 25' = 5274fpm

As you can see I also tested with MSE even though it's not ISS but with Windows firewall it's almost complete, some say it's all you need. At the end I decided that I will use it and dump all ISSes.

Norton slowed my system a lot, even though a lot of people say it doesn't. Kaspersky was fastest in scanning. G Data uses two AV engines, the one from Bitdefender and Avast.

Here is a couple of helpful websites.
www.av-comparatives.org
www.av-test.org

Hope this helps someone.

 

Well, to be frank, MSE WAS designed for Windows after all and it's highly effective in what it does (add to the fact it's free and replaces Windows native 'Defender' with it's own superior version).

I've only had experiences with Norton up to 2009 version and 360 (which is supposed to be a free a/v of 2010), and I must say the system was not really impacted a lot like previous versions had a tendency of doing.

The NIS 2010 'should be' least resource intense and one of the best on the market ... although it's still a paid program (perhaps you were using an older version), and there's a good possibility the mileage will vary from system to system in terms of impact.

In any event, if you chose to stick with MSE, then all the better.
Decent overall protection, minimal footprint on the system and most of all, FREE.

 

There, I edited the post with the versions. It was all newest trials.

 

with norton the first couple restarts will be a bit slow. it has to "learn" the system if you would do a insight scan as well as a full scan then reboot a couple more times it will get faster and faster due to it using insight for known good and bad files. after running insight you will notice it flags a certain % as not needing to be scanned and a small percentage to be scanned. if this is not done after the first restart is will start scanning everything which will slow things down some. just some info. and i do carry norton at my shop. norton is a fantastic program though on older systems with say 512 mb of ram it does slow them a but due to it using some of the pagefile to work in.

i can answer many questions if you have some as well as a rep from norton who does read these boards

imo i have used and tested mse and i personally would not use it on my own systems. i am personally using avast is5 and LOVE it..

 

zfactor, why you wouldn't use MSE, care to elaborate. I decided to use it due to it's performance and BC majority of guys disscussing the matter of ISS in this subforum said that it and "wise" web surfing is the way to go.

Before I use to install trials. My fisrt choice was Bullguard, it uses Bitdefender AV engine, it's not resource hungry and performance impact si very little. And it's a 2 months trial, which is very rare and it has a chat support 24/7. Next was Bitdefender, then Kaspersky and so on.

Whenever I tried Norton it was resource hungry and I've had been trying it since 2004 when there was Systemworks still in it.

 

the newest norton has NOTHING in common at all with the 2008 and prior builds.
not really a fair comparison there at all.

imo bitdefender is WAY WAY more resource hungry than norton is.

i have tested mse against nearly 10,000 samples i have and it did very poorly. it also lets many rouge's right through. i have also found various issues with mse on different systems, it was nearly impossible to remove from my system and made a mess out of win7.

 

Oh well that's one very bad thing, but haven't tried to uninstall it yet. Thanks for the reply.

 

MSE making a mess out of Win 7 and doing poorly?
I can tell you I installed MSE on numerous systems containing XP, Vista and Win 7 (last two also being x64 in some cases as well as x86) and it never caused any kind of a problem (we're talking about systems older than 4 years, all the way up to the latest ones).

It managed to find infections that paid programs like NIS missed and to this day, none of the people I introduced MSE to experienced issues (plus I use it myself).

NIS 2010 is a very good protection suite, no question about it (however, it's not 'perfect' ... no such product is).
Agreed, it's not resource intensive and has little to nothing in common with older versions. Still, fact of a matter is, you have to pay for it.
For those of us who don't have cash to spare, we need other viable solutions.

I remember that Symantec openly came out and said that MSE is an inferior product in comparison to NIS.

Not surprising really ... because getting a free application that serves as a decent protection suite will put people off from paying for a product that essentially does the same thing (and the company that charges subscription for their product, starts to lose money ... though with all the money in their accounts, I doubt they would 'suffer' any time soon).

I don't have anything against NIS, but free alternatives that do the same thing and are just as effective, exist, plus I fail to see the point in spending money like that.
Especially in these times.

 

Actually I think they use the Bitdefender and Avast! engines.

I did like MSE at one point, but had too many performance problems with it. I haven't used a security suite in a LONG time, but i have to say that, after testing, I have jumped on the avast! IS bandwagon. I have to still work out a few kinks though (like some issues of the firewall with sandboxie). But, It is definitely the best suite i have used.
And avast! is way lighter than MSE.

 

I would never let any Symantec product touch any of my systems. 'nuff said...

 

QFT, I mixed those two. I'll edit the first post.

 

my experiences with mse have been different than yours then. i have had issues with it at times now im not saying its a terrible program. imo for free i would 100% take avast or avira over it any day of the week though.

also norton is not perfect either. i have had issues with it at times as well but with my sample set and from major testing places norton still is the better av than mse is. no av will catch 100% so use one that does what you need and suites you as far as things like the gui and system resource usage are concerned, again imo