Antivirus Performance Test ( Feb 2010 )

[Ceyfer √]

The objective of this test is to show how personal antivirus software influences the typical operations performed by the user, slows down its work and utilizes the system resources.

While performing the tests, we measured and compared parameters having a direct influence on the user's perception of antivirus performance, namely:

1. Operation system boot time.
2. Memory & CPU used by antivirus software.
3. File copying performance (on-access antivirus scanner performance testing).
4. Scan speed (on-demand antivirus scanner performance testing).
5. Boot time for the five most popular office applications.

ixteen popular antivirus programs participating in this testing included:

1. Avast Antivirus Professional 4.8.1368
2. AVG Anti-Virus & Anti-Spyware 9.0.716
3. Avira Antivir Preminum 9.0.0.75
4. BitDefender Anti-Virus 2010 (13.0.18.345)
5. Dr.Web 5.01.1.11171
6. Eset Nod32 4.0.4680
7. F-Secure Anti-Virus 2010 (10.10 build 246) (СТРИМ.Антивирус)
8. Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010 (9.0.0.736 (a,b))
9. McAfee VirusScan Plus 2010 (13.15.113)
10. Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0.1611.0
11. Norton Anti-Virus 2010 (17.1.0.19)
12. Outpost Antivirus Pro 2009 (6.7.1.2983.450.0714)
13. Panda Antivirus 2010 (9.01.00)
14. Sophos Anti-Virus 9.0.0
15. Trend Micro Antivirus plus Antispyware 2010 (17.50.1366)
16. VBA32 WinNT Workstation 3.12.12.0

More Here ( Antimalware.ru )


Related Article : Raymond.cc Archives

[safeguy]

Thanks a lot for the info...took a quick look at it (will read it in detail later) and it seems that Avira wins the race overall in this test. Why do I say that? Just take a look at the Platinum Awards and Gold Awards on the 1st chart on that link and you'd see that Avira had 1 Platinum Award (The fastest antivirus on-demand scanners) + 2 Gold Awards (The fastest antivirus on-access scanners; The fastest office application antivirus scanners). That's more than any other company!

And I know that they tested the Premium version but personally I think the Free version has an even lower performance impact. w00t!!!

[leofelix]

Very intereseting thank you ceyfer..
I hope to see PREVX listed one of those days

[safeguy]

@leofelix

PrevX does have a low performance impact. and has potential in it (I like the way it works)..but unfortunately it may still be causing some problems on some machines...