Antivirus: Free vs. Paid Detection

dogmaryxx

Recent comparison article

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AntiVirus-Free-Vs-Paid-Detection-139005.shtml

[Deleted User]

Interesting article. Thank you.

I think the following sums up well the differences between paid and free:

In the end, choosing between a paid or free of charge antivirus depends entirely on your needs and computer usage knowledge.

I think if you're a clued up savvy IT user who doesn't blindly open unknown email attachments, download pirated software / music / films etc. then you should be fine with a free AV. It's the extra stuff that comes with paid software which would help you if a little less careful.

Browntoa

and for some reason it misses AVG off the test ??

fiddiwebb

Browntoa wrote: »

and for some reason it misses AVG off the test ??

What's AVG :huh:

996ducati

Interesting article.

I always take these tests with a pinch of salt.

As with any writing, who wrote the article, who paid for it and what (if any) was the angle/agenda....:cool:

For example, if they are a magazine, would they want to upset their advertisers?

BandJB

Totally agree with #5.
The best independent analysis I can find these days is at the 'av-comparatives' web site (can't post the actual link, I'm afraid: MSE rules!).
Be careful with the analysis though: the Retrospective is just as important as the Comparative report since so many AVs use heuristic methods to spot 'unusual' behaviour as well as just 'list checking' against known baddies.
To the unwary, the ones reporting a lot of False Positives are also dangerous since they may prompt deletion of perfectly valid stuff, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Despite its popularity, AVG seems to come a poor second to Avast these days.