Is AVG better than Norton?
I'm writing this thread because I've come to a point where I can't understand why people consistently recommend AVG and trash Norton as if it's some rogue, derelict AV that isn't worth spit. Aside of all the obvious reasons (costs money, system resource hog, slower scans), I feel that Norton is the better product of the two. Now, let me set something straight right off the bat. If being free, using less system resources and quicker scans are the reasons you feel AVG is better, so be it. Those are all valid, legit reasons you may prefer AVG over Norton. Myself? I don't mind making some sacrafices for a better product which I think Norton is. No worries, I plan on backing up my claims unlike some people who just sit there and say "AVG is better than Norton" and provide nothing in the way of actual test results that back up their claims. I plan on using a range of test results to gauge an overall idea of how these products have faired in the last 2-3 years. So don't get your panties in a bunch if some of these links have test results from a couple years ago (mainly av-test.org).
So let's start with what I consider one of the better independent AV testing sites: Virus Bulletin.
Let's compare the overall performance graphs of Norton vs. AVG. These consist of various tests, various OS's, and various versions of each AV over a extended amount of time. Look just under the "Overview" section of the links I'm providing, you'll see a green/red meter bar and test results for each. (Feel free to delve further into the details of all the tests).
AVG's overall performance
Norton's overall performance
Ok, I thought. so what. It's just one site. So I searched some more. Off I went to PC World where I found a June 2004 issue that did an AV comparison which included AVG (It's not always easy to find AV test results that have both AVG and Norton). Take a look Here
I then checked out some of the tests on www.av-test.org where once again, Norton consistently faired better than AVG. Unfortunately, these tests are not very recent but relevent if we're going to gauge the overall track record of both Norton and AVG. Check these 3 seperate test results out which span over a 4 month period. If you want to view them without having to click on all my links, then go to av-test's website, click "Tests" on the left hand side and you'll see that I selected the 3 most recent tests on Windows platforms that included both AVG and Norton.
2002-01 Test
2001-11
2001-10
I tested these links after I posted and for some reason I got re-directed to a different section on the site. If you do too, then just go to the main page, click "Tests" and select a test: 2002-01, or 2001-11 or 2001-10. Click "Online Version" and then select "Next" on the next screen. I found it easier to sort the results in descending order.
Don't get me wrong either. For being free, I think AVG does an excellent job. I'm sure the Pro edition works just as well. This isn't an anti-AVG thread believe it or not. Problem being is that I'm sick and tired of people bashing Norton and making claims that AVG detects more viruses and it an overall better product without any actual test result data to prove it. I myself have tested AVG 6.0 vs Norton and have ran into a situation (more than once) where AVG has missed viruses that Norton has found (This still doesn't make AVG a bad product in my eyes). I'm not using this as relevent data to prove my point because I simply can't prove it happened. However, these testing sights do provide observable results.
Now, feel free to go searching around the internet, books, newspapers etc and find me something, anything that flat out says - AVG is an overall better product when compared to Norton (in regard to test results). I'll glady welcome the results because if it is indeed true...that AVG is better than Norton, I'll gladly switch over to AVG and save myself some money.
*note - I warm up nicely to constructive criticism and I believe this post begs for it. So feel free to tell me why I'm incorrect in my thinking, if you should feel I am in error.
Re: Is AVG better than Norton?
Quote:
I myself have tested AVG 6.0 vs Norton and have ran into a situation (more than once) where AVG has missed viruses that Norton has found
I dont know whether u r wrong or not and i also saw the links u provided but i myself used Norton Antivirus 2004 and also AVG 6.0 but what i found was that both of them(one at time) were not able to make my box virus-free although my virus definitions were up-to-date so no chance of obselete data. than i went on searching on google.com and i found PANDA ANTIVIRUS PLATINUM SECURITY 8.00( i m sorry i dont remember the link as it was sometime back) and wow, it proved to be a boom to me, it not only removed all the viruses from my PC but also made it faster! and now i can browse any part of the internet without worrying for the viruses!!! it also provides a firewall which is compatible to the Windows XP Service Pack 2 firewall and together they make a fabulous combo!! thats my piece of experience and if u ask me i'll seriously recommend Panda AV!!! dont take me wrong but do tell me if something opposite happened or Norton AV 2004 have now became more efficient and is now able to perform better than others as i'll then get that thing into action.... u dont want to keep a expensive thing u bought just like a piece of junk! do u?