Barclays = Kaspersky. Or stick with Avast?

Grampus8

Barclays customers with online banking get free Kasperky AV.

I am one such person but currently use Avast.

Would you advise switching to Kaspersky or staying with Avast?

What is the likelihood of Barclays getting uppity were a claim to be made if you weren't using Kaspersky?

Many thanks.

G

RussJK

Easy choice, go with Kaspersky. The latest Kaspersky is now just as fast as Avast, and so now an overall superior program. Kaspersky, along with Avira and Eset tend to be better at detecting viruses/malware that there aren't specific definitions for. Given the rate in which new malware is produced, this is fairly important.

Won't affect any claims though.

gonzo127

RussJK wrote: »

Easy choice, go with Kaspersky. The latest Kaspersky is now just as fast as Avast, and so now an overall superior program. Kaspersky, along with Avira and Eset tend to be better at detecting viruses/malware that there aren't specific definitions for. Given the rate in which new malware is produced, this is fairly important.

Won't affect any claims though.

although Kaspersky has better detection rates it is still slightly 'heavier' than Avast, as to if barcleys will get uperty - no they cant so long as your av is upto date so its really up to you if you want to change

latest AV compartives tests (ondemand and FP August testing, Whole product Dynamic testing March - June)

Avira
on demand detection 99.5%
11 false positive
dynamic testing scored 96.9%

Avast
on demand detection 97.2%
10 false positive
dynamic testing scored 97.7%

Kaspersky
on demand detection 98.3%
1 false positive
dynamic testing scored 98.2%

Norton
on demand detection 95.1%
57 false positive
dynamic testing scored 99.3%

McAfee
on demand detection 96.8%
0 false positive
dynamic testing scored 93.5%

Microsoft Security Essentials
on demand detection 92.1%
1 false positive
dynamic testing did not test

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_od_aug2011.pdf
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/dyn/wpdt2011_1_en.pdf

TakeThis

Firstly, the product offered is Kaspersky Internet Security, not just the AV.

If your machine has ample resources, why not consider Kaspersky? You can always remove it if you don't like it.

RussJK

The performance results in terms of speed are so close that I would say it'd vary from machine to machine, essentially they are just as light.

It's worth pointing out that Avast traditionally performs so poorly in the retrospective tests (testing against known viruses but with an older set of definitions), that they've asked not to be included in them any more! Companies only ask to be excluded from tests if they know the results reflect poorly on them.

They aren't in the latest retrospective test:
http://av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_retro_may2011.pdf

Eset, Avira AV (paid) - 59%
Kaspersky AV - 55%
Panda AV (paid) - 52%
MSE - 36%

Normally Avast is one of the lowest, so it's no surprise they've pulled out. In the previous comparative from November 2010 they came second last, and even K7 beat them which is a bit embarrassing. Avast was only a bit better than PC Tools at detecting unknown viruses.

If you're using Avast, you don't have much buffer for zero-day viruses as you will with Kaspersky - other than the auto-sandbox.

gonzo127

RussJK, dont want to hijack the thread especially as i agree Kaspersky is a better antivirus/suite,

however i just wanted to point out that Kaspersky is heavier and if someone is using XP with 1gb of RAM it would be noticeable whereas windows 7 with 4gb it wouldnt be (unless something is wrong)

and as noted in the results of the whole product dynamic tests Avast Free would score the same as the internet security version (note number 8) which i think allows it to become more comparative in this regards

as every with these things people have to make their own choice

Grampus8

Thanks very much everyone, v helpful.

Will give kaspersky a go.

RussJK

gonzo127 wrote: »

however i just wanted to point out that Kaspersky is heavier and if someone is using XP with 1gb of RAM it would be noticeable whereas windows 7 with 4gb it wouldnt be (unless something is wrong)

You may have noticed I can be argumentative

When I talk lightness, I just mean how the system runs compared to if there was no antivirus on there. F-Secure is one of the 'lightest' in that regard, despite using much more memory than Avast. Other factors include efficient disk I/O usage, although in pure scanning Avast does excel at that.

I don't even look at memory usage any more except if I'm working on an older system with low RAM - I just want to know how responsive the computer will be, how quickly programs will load, or how quickly I can open documents etc.

Older versions of Kaspersky were definitely 'heavy' in this way, and IMO the main reason I used to recommend against people using it. If people rely exclusively on an antivirus to protect them, then IMO it's just a matter of time no matter how good the antivirus - so I figure that a quick antivirus is better than a slow but slightly better one. Now I can't see much difference between the two in actual usage, although everyone can have a difference experience.

gonzo127

RussJK wrote: »

You may have noticed I can be argumentative

i have NEVER notice anyone on the techie forum being argumentative!

although we do occasionally have heated discussions

dixiebb

personally, i would stick with the brilliant Avast :cool:

TakeThis

dixiebb wrote: »

personally, i would stick with the brilliant Avast :cool:

On which factors do you base your personal recommendation?