Avast! vs. ....

[AngelicKnight]

Ok, I know we're all quite sick of the "which AV/Firewall/whatever is better?" questions, so this one is very specific. I've noticed Avast! antivirus has yet to be discussed much among the other big name AVs we've mentioned on other threads (including the countless "Which AV is better?" threads).

So, how does Avast! antivirus specifically compare to the other free AVs out there? For instance, Avast! vs. AVG, etc. Reason I'm asking is that I use Avast! ever since I could no longer afford paying for Symantec stuff, and I've been very happy with it, especially it's automated live update feature. But I don't yet have any experience with AVG or the other free AVs that I've heard quite a bit of praise on.

Anyway, please keep responses focused on simply Avast! compared to other free AVs, so we don't drive the seniors nuts. :D

[Spyder32]

Hrmm, never heard of it. Mind to share a link to the download? That way I can compare it to the other one's I've used. Thanks :)

[PM8228]

I have used Avast!. The only issue I have with it is that it's deep scan takes a really long time.

-Cheers-

[Negative]

I use Avast, but after seeing this (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406), I might change back to AVG. That page shows that Avast didn't pass Virus Bulletin's 100%-test (Alwil still has the logo on their website, though...).

[AngelicKnight]

That would be www.avast.com

The deep scan does take a while, but I found the AVG scan to be pretty long as well. It also has a neat feature in that it has it's own screensaver. It actually runs a virus scan everytime the screensaver runs.

[Spyder32]

Thanks AngelicKnight for the link, I'ma download it then letcha' know what I think. :)

[AngelicKnight]

after seeing this, I might change back to AVG.

Ouch, 9 passes, 19 fails. The test is based on:


o Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
o Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files.


That may have answered my question...

[Spyder32]

Ugh, don't tell me your making me download this for no reason now ;)

[Negative]

It's got a nice interface, and it says "Virus database has been updated" every time the virus database updates (duh), and that's pretty cool. Isn't that enough reason to download it? :D

[AngelicKnight]

No, I definately still want to know what you think on that. It's really served me well despite it's failings on those tests.

[AngelicKnight]

It's got a nice interface, and it says "Virus database has been updated" every time the virus database updates (duh), and that's pretty cool. Isn't that enough reason to download it?

Don't forget the nifty screensaver! :D

[Spyder32]

It's got a nice interface, and it says "Virus database has been updated" every time the virus database updates (duh), and that's pretty cool. Isn't that enough reason to download it?

Haha. A nice interface and a nice message. :( Damn you Angelic ;)

[AngelicKnight]

Oh well, at least I got my answer pretty quick! I had thought it was pretty good since it caught some viruses pretty fast on my box at home, but now I'm seeing the test results I see the error of my ways here. I'd imagine it would be sufficient for the computer-illiterate, simple home user who doesn't know how to update their AV though.

[The3ntropy]

NOD32 in line scanner using Kerio Winroute 6 here. Haven't had any problems for quite some time. Both virus def's and winroute auto update themselves automatically. Have used Nod32 & Winroute for several months on a Windows 2k3 ent server. Since all virus scanning takes place on one host machine, I do not need to worry about constantly pushing updates to all of the clients or the stupid av software bogging the clients all down to hell.

Winroute 6 can scan http, smtp, and ftp transfers; and you can specify file extensions to ignore as well.

[AngelicKnight]

Wanted to bring this back up since newer versions of both have come out, and I'm looking at purchasing the pro edition of one of the two of these for our corporate laptops.

Avast is considerably cheaper. I can put one copy of Avast Professional on each of our four laptops for the same price that I could put AVG Pro on one, so AVG Pro is going to be considerably more expensive.

So anyone have any input on which one of the two they prefer? Any more recent studies similar to what Negative posted here (see first page)?

[The Duck]

Well, I have yet to use the pro version of avast! but I have been using the home edition and I must say I am also extremely happy with it... I don't know about those tests, but it's passed my test :D...

[Aspman]

I've used Avast for a couple of years new. I used to use AVG but it threw a wobbler one day and I couldn't be bothered to hunt down the problem.

I've been happy with Avast it's caught a few things trying to sneak in and unlike AVG it will automatically update so I tend to put that on other users PC like my Dad who would never update anything manually.

I think it has some issues with Zone Alarm but both programs recognise this and present a solution straight away.

I've not used any of the pro versions but just common sense makes me think that if AVG is 4x more expensive is it going to be 4x better? Probably not and unless AVG presents some options which increase it's value I'd go with Avast.

What is the corporate desktop AV? Why are you not putting that on the laptops?

[moxnix]

I have used Avast for a couple of years now, but every week I also run Trends Housecall. Housecall has never found anything that Avast hadn't already identified.

[AngelicKnight]

What is the corporate desktop AV? Why are you not putting that on the laptops?

The corporate desktop AV is CA eTrust, which is updated via our local AV server. Since the laptops are usually outside the home network and thus our AV server, that doesn't do them any good.

I think I've been won over to Avast then, it definitely seems to give the most bang for the buck.

[Aspman]

Does CA not provide a suitable solution for remote workers. I had a quick scan through the eTrust part of the site and it suggest (though I didn't find it) that is does have facilities to cover remote users.

Is a CA solution too expensive (ie you've not got that many laptops to justify an addon)?
Just wondering why you'd want to go down the road of implementing another product rather than stick with you desktop av provider?

[DakX]

I use avast aswell. Pretty happy with it but afther seeing that it missed 19 and only got 9 m downloading avg aswell. Can't be to carefull nowaday's.

[tyger_claw]

Try AntiVir, I've always loved it and they have corp editions too.

www.free-av.com