For those pondering AVG vs Avast AV freeware. 20 replies

Please wait...

>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

The subject of whom has the best AV freeware has come up often here and most seem to say AVG is the best. Have you ever read a head to head review comparing the two though? Well I finally found one that confirms everything I found to be true when I compared the two personally. This review is concise and to the point without being lengthy. It covers malware tests old and new, resource usage (one of the most heated debates between the two), update frequency, scan times, ease of updating, features, and most importantly methods of removal and restoration when the more stubborn nasties are encountered. There is one very impressive statement made in this review regarding real time protection. As I have been telling AVG fanatics, this is where the two really differ. Also note the comments about resource usage, another myth debunked. It takes a lot more than daily updates for an AV to do it's job well. About the only thing not covered here is scheduled scanning, where admittedly I'll give the nod to AVG. The trade-offs are too many to trust it over Avast IMO though. Read for yourself though and then decide, you may just find some facts you weren't aware of. http://www.teknologikally.com/2007/10/avg-free-vs-avast-home-big-question.html




arcadeplayer987

Revenge was here.

50 XP

25th April 2007

0 Uploads

1,819 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Nice find, I always like Avast more than AVG




foodmaniac2003

Gelato pwns all

50 XP

11th March 2006

0 Uploads

2,875 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Great find. Enjoyed the article.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

I recommend AVG for three reasons.

1. It is simpler, and more user friendly. Avast looks like a music player, not an Anti-virus.

2. Quicker updates, means it is better for dial-up users.

3. AVG has a fairly consistent interface across Windows, and Linux.

I only recommend Avast, if the person has teenagers, or may use questionable software.

Otherwise, I don't care how good an AV is, they don't detect and remove everything. So you still have to use a variety of tools, often from Symantec, or Microsoft. Might as well get something that you can use properly, and know what it does.

I switch back and forth between them myself, to keep up with them. I use both AVG, and Avast on Linux. I like the skins available for the Windows version of Avast.




EpicLoad

OMFG!!! Where am I?!?

50 XP

4th June 2007

0 Uploads

1,648 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

Very nice article, been using Avast for a long time now, has to be my favorite.

Monster_user;4018177I recommend AVG for three reasons.

1. It is simpler, and more user friendly. Avast looks like a music player, not an Anti-virus.

2. Quicker updates, means it is better for dial-up users.

3. AVG has a fairly consistent interface across Windows, and Linux.

I only recommend Avast, if the person has teenagers, or may use questionable software.

Otherwise, I don't care how good an AV is, they don't detect and remove everything. So you still have to use a variety of tools, often from Symantec, or Microsoft. Might as well get something that you can use properly, and know what it does.

I switch back and forth between them myself, to keep up with them. I use both AVG, and Avast on Linux. I like the skins available for the Windows version of Avast.

Yes, but when Avast will warn you about something trying to download itself onto your computer, before it even does, that's what really counts. I've had a quite a few experiences myself where Avast saved my ass.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago
EpicLoad;4018305Yes, but when Avast will warn you about something trying to download itself onto your computer, before it even does, that's what really counts. I've had a quite a few experiences myself where Avast saved my ass.

Yes indeedy, you have said a mouthful sir.;)




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Yeah, but do people still have to jump through hoops to get it? I'm talking about n00bs that just recently learned the difference between the computer's power button, and the button on the monitor, or even the button on the DVD-ROM...

Giving out an e-mail address, and having to copy and paste a bunch of numbers, just complicates an already foreign process. They have enough trouble clicking "next", or "continue" in an installation wizard.

I might recommend it to experienced users, but not to new users. It doesn't matter if it catches it before the download, or after the download. As long as it catches it before the virus spreads, or the file is opened.

Perhaps I think that way, because I gotten used to Linux. No on-demand scanning, and no scanning downloads. No worries on that anyway.

I have tried recommending Avast. Everybody that has had it, prefers AVG over Norton (too slow), and Avast (too confusing). Except for the fact that they think they have to purchase the full version of AVG after a year... :rolleyes:




The-Bleh-Bleh

Hasselhoff is my hero

50 XP

12th December 2006

0 Uploads

6,189 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

I do think that's pretty cool, how Avast can catch files while they're downloading...

Norton doesn't do that for me...

But it's not my choice to switch to Avast...




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
Monster_user;4018830I might recommend it to experienced users, but not to new users.

I guess my thinking would be considered counter intuitive to you then because I feel the last thing you want to recommend to "new users" is something that doesn't catch things as well. Just doesn't make sense to me. And Avast is just as easy to use IMO.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

Kind of. It doesn't catch them as well? But it does catch them right? Detection is an important part of any AV, but it must also be usable. As long as AVG has a reasonable comparable detection rate, compared to Avast. It doesn't matter when the viruses are detected.

Another thing. Will they continue to update it? An outdated Anti-Virus is no good to anybody.

Would they prefer to upgrade AVG every year or two? Or would they prefer to reregister Avast, and upgrade every couple of years as well? Finally, would they prefer to pay for subscriptions, ala Norton? AVG fixed the registration "problem", but still has that upgrade "problem". Many of my "clients" think they have to buy the newest version, or do without AVG.

Another thing. How easy is it to use? Ease of use is very important. It has to have clear, understandable buttons, and dialogs. Avast looks like a Music player, not an Anti-Virus. Performing a manual scan is not obvious.

Avast is excellent a transparent prevention tool. It even detects viruses via other web programs, such as Instant Messengers. However it fails at being a basic user Anti-Virus.

I give my "clients" a link to AVG, and they install it. I give my "clients" a link to Avast, and they don't even register it the first time. If I don't install Avast for them, its useless. Then it only lasts for so long, before I have to do it again myself.

Its easier for me to recommend AVG over Avast, because the installation, and maintenance of AVG is simpler.

Detection vs Installation and Maintenance. It might detect everything once its installed, or while it is registered, but if it isn't registered, or updated, then it is useless.

Since the process is easy for many experienced users, such as yourself. Avast is the better AV for experienced users. It is not for inexperienced users.