which antivirus is the best?

NOD32 basssss..... thats all the av u'll ever need. And don't go by all the techie n all... if u have a lil bit of common sense you'll figure it out. It's not complicated at all.
 
Over the years I have used Norton, McAfee, Kapersky, Panda, CA, and PC Security Shield (aka The Shield). Norton and CA crashed my computer when I installed them so I would NEVER recommend them. McAfee is a resource hog although it has some nice features, but it allowed a virus to get hru which crashed my system.

2 years ago I finally settled on PC Security Shield. It was reasonably priced, you don't even know it's running in the background and I have not got one virus since installing it. You do NEED a good seperate spyware program which I would recommwend Ad-Aware by Lavasoft. I have the professional version but the free version works great as well. Give a trial version of PC Security Shield a try, if you haven't already decided on one. NEVER run 2 antivirus programs on your system at the same time, you most likely will regret it.

Gooooood Luck
 
@nottheguru: Do you mean "Security Shield" or "The Shield Pro" or "The Shield Deluxe"? In 2006 they were two different products. "The Shield Pro" uses Hauri Virobot scan engine which is pretty much crappity crap. Security Shield is based on F-Secure which is again based on Kaspersky (with 2 custom engines extra). "The Shield Deluxe" is based on Kaspersky AntiVirus 6.0. But PC Security Shield probably doesn't have the technical capacity to offer very good support, as it looks like a small company. :)
 
Rank

1. Kaspersky version 7.0.0.43 beta - 99.23%

2. Kaspersky version 6.0.2.614 - 99.13%

3. Active Virus Shield by AOL version 6.0.0.308 - 99.13%

4. ZoneAlarm with KAV Antivirus version 7.0.337.000 - 99.13%

5. F-Secure 2007 version 7.01.128 - 98.56%

6. BitDefender Professional version 10 - 97.70%

7. BullGuard version 7.0.0.23 - 96.59%

8. Ashampoo version 1.30 - 95.80%

9. eScan version 8.0.671.1 - 94.43%

10. Nod32 version 2.70.32 - 94.00%

11. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 93.27%

12. Avast Professional version 4.7.986 - 92.82%

13. AVG Anti-Malware version 7.5.465 - 92.14%

14. F-Prot version 6.0.6.4 - 91.35%

15. McAfee Enterprise version 8.5.0i+AntiSpyware module - 90.65%

16. Panda 2007 version 2.01.00 - 90.06%

17. Norman version 5.90.37 - 88.47%

18. ArcaVir 2007 - 88.24%

19. McAfee version 11.0.213 - 86.13%

20. Norton Professional 2007 - 86.08%

21. Rising AV version 19.19.42 - 85.46%

22. Dr. Web version 4.33.2 - 85.09%

23. PC-Cillin 2007 version 15.00.1450 - 84.96%

24. Iolo version 1.1.8 - 83.35%

25. Virus Chaser version 5.0a - 79.51%

26. VBA32 version 3.11.4 - 77.66%

27. Sophos Sweep version 6.5.1 - 69.79%

28. ViRobot Expert version 5.0 - 69.53%

29. Antiy Ghostbusters version 5.2.1 - 65.95%

30. Zondex Guard version 5.4.2 - 63.79%

31. Vexira 2006 version 5.002.62 - 60.07%

32. V3 Internet Security version 2007.04.21.00 - 55.09%

33. Comodo version 2.0.12.47 beta - 53.94%

34. Comodo version 1.1.0.3 - 53.39%

35. A-Squared Anti-Malware version 2.1 - 52.69%

36. Ikarus version 5.19 - 50.56%

37. Digital Patrol version 5.00.37 - 49.80%

38. ClamWin version 0.90.1 - 47.95%

39. Quick Heal version 9.00 - 38.64%

40. Solo version 5.1 build 5.7.3 - 34.52%

41. Protector Plus version 8.0.A02 - 33.13%

42. PcClear version 1.0.4.3 - 27.14%

43. AntiTrojan Shield version 2.1.0.14 - 20.25%

44. PC Door Guard version 4.2.0.35- 19.95%

45. Trojan Hunter version 4.6.930 - 19.20%

46. VirIT version 6.1.75 - 18.78%

47. E-Trust PestPatrol version 8.0.0.6 - 11.80%

48. Trojan Remover version 6.6.0 - 10.44%

49. The Cleaner version 4.2.4319 - 7.26%

50. True Sword version 4.2 - 2.20%

51. Hacker Eliminator version 1.2 - 1.43%

52. Abacre version 1.4 - 0.00%

As per the virus tests from Virus GR . This should give some perspective . The conditions were

*

The test was made on 23 April-10 May 2007, using Windows XP Professional SP2 on a P4 3000 Mhz, 1024MB DDRAM.

*

All programs tested had the latest versions, upgrades and updates and they were tested using their full scanning capabilities e.g. heuristics, full scan etc.

*

The default settings of each program were not used, in order for each program to achieve its maximum detection rate. Because of this, there is a possibility for the tested programs to detect a few false positives.

*

All programs were updated on 22 April 2007, between 10.00AM and 13.00PM GMT.

*

The 174770 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, Nod32, Dr.Web, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus program detected it as a new virus.

*

ALL virus samples were unpacked and the only samples that were kept were the ones that were packed using external-dos-packers (that means not winzip, winrar, winace etc).

*

The virus samples had the correct file extension using a special program (Renexts) and were unique, according to checksum32 filesize.

*

Most "fake" virus samples were removed, as well as "garbage" files.

*

The programs MKS_VIR , PER and IPArmor were not tested because there was no english demo version available.

*

The programs Anti-Hacker Expert , Command , Extendia AVK , GDATA AVK , BOClean , UNA , VET and Freedom were not tested because there was no demo version available.

*

Thorough mode was not used in VBA32 due to extremely slow scan process.

*

A-Squared Anti-Malware and eTrust PestPatrol are anti-trojan/anti-spyware programs, not antivirus programs

*

F-Prot was tested using its command line scanner (options /adware /applications /report /streams /maxdepth=4 /heurlevel=4) because its GUI kept crashing.

*

Windows Live OneCare, BKAV, PC Tools kept crashing while scanning the samples.

*

TheShield uses the exact same engine as VirobotExpert.

*

Avira uses the exact same engine as AntiVir.

*

Fire uses the exact same engine as Solo.

*

MKS_VIR uses the exact same engine as ArcaVir.

*

VirusBuster uses the exact same engine as Vexira.

*

BullGuard uses the exact same engine as BitDefender free edition.

*

Avast Professional uses the exact same engine as Avast free edition.

*

AVG Anti-Malware uses the exact same engine as AVG Antivirus free edition plus the Ewido scan engine, so it has better detection than AVG Antivirus free edition. (More information here AVG Anti-Virus and Internet Security - Product comparison)

*

A-squared Anti-Malware Professional uses the exact same engine as A-squared free edition.

* InVircible did not include a "typical" scanner-function and could not be tested.

*

V-Catch checks only mail accounts and could not be tested.

*

DOS-Based scanners were not tested.

The following file types were used.

SH, ELF, COM, EXE, PL, BAT, PRC, DOC, XLS, BIN, MDB, IMG, PPT, VBS, MSG, VBA, OLE, HTM, INI, SMM, TD0, REG, CLASS, HTA, JS, VI_, URL, PHP, WMF, HLP, XML, SCR, PIF, SHS, WBT, CSC, MAC, DAT, CLS, STI, INF, HQX, XMI, SIT.

The virus samples were divided into these categories, according to the type of the virus :

*

File = BeOS, FreeBSD, Linux, Mac, Palm, OS2, Unix, BinaryImage, BAS viruses, MenuetOS.

*

MS-DOS = MS-DOS viruses.

*

Windows = Win.*.* viruses.

*

Macro = Macro, Multi and Formula viruses.

*

Malware = Adware, DoS, Constructors, Exploit, Flooders, Nukers, Sniffers, SpamTools, Spoofers, Virus Construction Tools, Droppers, PolyEngines.

*

Script = ABAP, BAT, Corel, HTML, Java, Scripts, MSH, VBS, WBS, Worms, PHP, Perl, Ruby viruses.

*

Trojans-Backdoors = Trojan and Backdoor viruses.
 
virus.gr has had a history of having many corrupted samples in its test set which caused the results to be not so accurate. Currently, the results are still not accurate due to this:

Virus Construction Tools, PolyEngines, MS-DOS viruses

These 4 types of "malware" are no longer relevant today from a home user standpoint, and neither do MS-DOS viruses execute completely in Windows 2000 and above. Many AVs have different definitions of what should be detected as a Virus Construction Tool or Polyengine. These do not pose a direct risk to the users. The inclusion of these 3 categories causes the test results to be skewered. So, for now, take this particular test with a grain of salt. :)
 
It's funny CA Antivirus is not even on that list considering it's built on the same eTrust engine, which is used by 99% of Fortune 500 companies. I paid $30 for CA Antivirus and Spyware 2007 about 6 months ago - no signs of any viruses or malware since then ;)
 
You wasted your money on a crap AV, RiO - AV-comparatives tested CA Antivirus 2007 and it had a miserable 65% detection rate. See for yourself:

Go to AV-Comparatives, then click the "comparatives" button on the left side of the screen, and when you scroll down on the comparatives page, you will find a PDF report on the performance of CA Antivirus 2007.

In order to qualify to be a "good" AV product and to get regularly tested at AV-comparatives, it must get at least 85% detection rate at AV-comparatives. So your CA is quite the bit behind...
 
That's odd too, because I've had no issues especially with malware which normally wreaks havoc on a system. And yes, I do run counter-checks on my PC once a month with A-squared and Ad Aware.

I've always chosen to test my own AV programs, I was on NAVCE for about 4 years before I tried Kaspersky and then CA. Since it is working out for me, I trust it more than a review that someone else wrote ;)
 
NOD 32 AV is better than AVG and ZA as per my personal experience with all these 3 in past 3-4 years.

AVG and ZA detect Virus/Trojan etc with 98 successfully but fails in detect with XP Pro SP2.
 
Darth_Infernus said:
You wasted your money on a crap AV, RiO - AV-comparatives tested CA Antivirus 2007 and it had a miserable 65% detection rate. See for yourself:

Go to AV-Comparatives, then click the "comparatives" button on the left side of the screen, and when you scroll down on the comparatives page, you will find a PDF report on the performance of CA Antivirus 2007.
Btw, they don't "endorse" any AV products and suggest/encourage users to download trials before buying anything because their reviews are only indicative.
 
One thing about CA, RiO - CA lacks mainly in trojans, spyware and other malware detection (and other OS, i.e. Linux, etc. malware). If you have PestPatrol installed along with CA Antivirus 2007, then you should have good protection because I know for a fact that CA puts lot of focus on trojans/spyware detection for PestPatrol only. And AV-comparatives tested only the Antivirus, so it does not give a complete picture. :)

Also, maybe you won't trust CA anymore after I send you some trojans. Are you game? :p (just kidding)

Stick said:
NOD 32 AV is better than AVG and ZA as per my personal experience with all these 3 in past 3-4 years.

AVG and ZA detect Virus/Trojan etc with 98 successfully but fails in detect with XP Pro SP2.

ZoneAlarm, with version 7.0, has switched from CA's engine to Kaspersky engine. You should try ZoneAlarm Antivirus again, you may be surprised by its detection rates since it now uses Kaspersky engine. ;)

AVG, you probably tried the free edition. However, since 2006 AVG's paid editions have improved like hell. Dealing with hundreds of samples, I know how AVG works, and the Anti-Malware edition is IMO better than NOD32 (but of course NOD32 still has better heuristics). ;)
 
vishalk said:
hi,

NOD32 and Kaspersky are the best but there is also symantec anti-virus corporate edition which is bit heavy on resources but then again it is a matter of choice and its u who have the decision making of what u prefer the better of these.

It seems that all of u guys are really concern about how these suites will gobble up your system resources....I have Norton 360 on my 4 year old laptop and have no problems with it so far. Happy with it, in fact!

Perhaps you guys should look at the numbers on Home & Home Office - Symantec Corp. they claim to have rewritten 80% of the code to make if faster.

A bit of info there for you just to clear the clouds above your heads..:)
 
The best Freeware Solutions :
Antivir Classic from Avira
AOL Active Virus Shield

Best overall solution :
Kaspersky
Also consider NOD32 if you are running an old system. Else dont go for NOD32.
 
Avast,nod32 and sophos are among the best but choosing one of them should be only done by getting practically on the computer and testing the memory usage
 
Crazysah said:
Norton 2007 is easily the best guys.

Norton 2007 is the best only for detection of polymorphic viruses. Otherwise, its not the best, but certainly good. But detection rates do not mean everything guys, support matters as well, price matters, interface matters, license matters etc. :)
 
Back
Top