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
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.