Eset vs Kaspersky 2009: test drive
Yesterday at work they argued with the admins, which antivirus is better, Eset or Kaspersky. From the words decided to get to the point, the results of a small test drive and want to share with habravchanami.
KIS 2009 and Eset Smart Security 3.0.551.0 were compared.
It should be borne in mind that I am not a professional tester, so I looked at all sorts of indicators that I could understand:
Test results under the cut
1. Download speed - the indicator was not critical, both antiviruses boot in seconds.
2. The speed of working with a flash drive (folder size 685 meg.):
2 min and 3 sec - at Casper and 1 and 7 - at NOD
As you can see, the difference in speed is 2 times, but on the other hand, in quantitative terms, this is only a minute, so in principle it is not critical.
')
3. Check the folder on the screw (folder size 417 meg, contains several subfolders and archives):
There is already a difference not in time, 6 minutes against 4, but on the other hand, Kaspersky silently checked everything, and GCD periodically resented the contents :)
4. Separately by archives (archive of 100 meg.)
Kaspersky 4 seconds, GCD - 29.
5. Well, actually anti-virus properties.
Just merged from an Internet folder with a collection of viruses (Password virus), and here it is even very strange:
NOD removed 116 vyra from 148
Casper - 133 out of 148
The download speed when running antivirus software does not change by more than 5 kb / s, but I would write it off to the provider.
CPU load when running antivirus:
Nod jumped in the range of 58-72%
Kaspersky was in the range of 17-42%
Conclusion:
In terms of virus scan, Casper turned out to be better than NOD.
Further, the difference in the speed of work is, GCD a little faster. However, if we are talking about a simple user, then the difference in a couple of minutes will not worry him much, but the quality of scanning seems to be higher for Kaspersky.
In general, Casper won in my mini-test.
KIS 2009 and Eset Smart Security 3.0.551.0 were compared.
It should be borne in mind that I am not a professional tester, so I looked at all sorts of indicators that I could understand:
- Download speed
- The speed of checking the same information on a flash drive
- The speed of checking the same information on the screw
- Work with archives
- Impact on Internet speed
- Impact on CPU utilization
- Well and, actually, search virya
Test results under the cut
1. Download speed - the indicator was not critical, both antiviruses boot in seconds.
2. The speed of working with a flash drive (folder size 685 meg.):
2 min and 3 sec - at Casper and 1 and 7 - at NOD
As you can see, the difference in speed is 2 times, but on the other hand, in quantitative terms, this is only a minute, so in principle it is not critical.
')
3. Check the folder on the screw (folder size 417 meg, contains several subfolders and archives):
There is already a difference not in time, 6 minutes against 4, but on the other hand, Kaspersky silently checked everything, and GCD periodically resented the contents :)
4. Separately by archives (archive of 100 meg.)
Kaspersky 4 seconds, GCD - 29.
5. Well, actually anti-virus properties.
Just merged from an Internet folder with a collection of viruses (Password virus), and here it is even very strange:
NOD removed 116 vyra from 148
Casper - 133 out of 148
The download speed when running antivirus software does not change by more than 5 kb / s, but I would write it off to the provider.
CPU load when running antivirus:
Nod jumped in the range of 58-72%
Kaspersky was in the range of 17-42%
Conclusion:
In terms of virus scan, Casper turned out to be better than NOD.
Further, the difference in the speed of work is, GCD a little faster. However, if we are talking about a simple user, then the difference in a couple of minutes will not worry him much, but the quality of scanning seems to be higher for Kaspersky.
In general, Casper won in my mini-test.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/38954/
All Articles