Kaspersky vs. F-Secure (Pros and Cons)
superboyAC
I know it's stupid to ask what AV is better, but what are the pros and cons of Kaspersky and
F-secure, since they basically use the same engine.
I've used both, and here is what I can tell:
Kaspersky has more options to customize, and I've heard that even though they use the same enginee,
Kaspersky Personal still detects viruses, malware, etc. at a better rate. Is this true?
F-Secure (I've used the workstation version) is much more simple. However it loads a ridiculous
amount of processes (something like 12). I think Kaspersky only has 2. On the other hand, the
processes don't seem to slow down my system that much, so it may not be a big deal. Now, with
Kaspersky, I definitely felt the resource hit, but I can't remember if v5 did the same.
Any thoughts?
nu...@zilch.com
wrote:
>I've searched the web, but can't find a clear answer to this...
>
>I know it's stupid to ask what AV is better, but what are the pros and cons of Kaspersky and
>F-secure, since they basically use the same engine.
>
>I've used both, and here is what I can tell:
>Kaspersky has more options to customize, and I've heard that even though they use the same enginee,
>Kaspersky Personal still detects viruses, malware, etc. at a better rate. Is this true?
Depends on the test. Historically, KAV would sometimes score slightly
higher than F-Secure at the VTC. The most recent test:
http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/
gives F-Secure a slight edge. Seems the differences in detection
between them is so miniscule you can ignore detection as a factor, and
base your choice on other factors ... including price.
>F-Secure (I've used the workstation version) is much more simple. However it loads a ridiculous
>amount of processes (something like 12). I think Kaspersky only has 2. On the other hand, the
>processes don't seem to slow down my system that much, so it may not be a big deal. Now, with
>Kaspersky, I definitely felt the resource hit, but I can't remember if v5 did the same.
>
>Any thoughts?
For older OS such as Win 9X/ME, KAV version 3.5 available from the
Swiss site:
is really the cat's meow :) I hear it's "iffy" though on XP.
Art
Ian Kenefick
wrote:
>I've searched the web, but can't find a clear answer to this...
F-Secure uses a multi engine setup
-AVP (Kaspersky) for general malware
-Libra specifically for Macro and Script virus
-Orion as a backup engine to AVP should F-Secure find a virus that AVP
does not yet detect - Orion is also their Heuristic engine.
Kaspersky uses a standalone engine as do most others with the
exception of Gdata.
Kaspersky is lighter on resources for sure but F-Secure has better
auto update mechanism which uses backweb technology. I think the
F-Secure UI is better designed for the average user.
F-Secure publishes update sometimes before Kaspersky Lab in the event
of an outbreak. Currently they F-Secure do not detect what Kaspersky
define as Riskware (Inclusive of Spyware, Adware etc.). They have a
seperate program for this which is rebadged version of Ad-Aware from
Lavasoft to do this but is only available if you buy FSIS 2005.
F-Secure installation is not as simplified as Kaspersky and is more
prone to failure. The F-Secure disinfection routeen is a little bit on
the unstable side also whereas Kaspersky Disinfection routeen seems to
be quick and gets the job done super fast.
Even though the F-Secure team is very professional I think the
application has become fat and sluggish. I think KAV has the edge
because of this.
Best regards - Met vriendelijke groeten - Bien à vous - Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Cordiali Saluti
Ian Kenefick
http://www.ik-cs.com
BW
5. Ver. 5 is a completely new and different product.
I have tested both.
4.5 uses about 13,5MB
5 uses about 44MB! And it take a lot longer for WinXP to start up!
Way of testing:
-Take a clean pc - see how much RAM is used in TaskManager
-Install Anti-Virus product check configuration settings and restart
-See how much RAM is used now.
Ian Kenefick
>When you talk about Kapsersky there A LOT different between ver. 4.5 and
>5. Ver. 5 is a completely new and different product.
>
>I have tested both.
>4.5 uses about 13,5MB
>5 uses about 44MB! And it take a lot longer for WinXP to start up!
>
>Way of testing:
>-Take a clean pc - see how much RAM is used in TaskManager
>-Install Anti-Virus product check configuration settings and restart
>-See how much RAM is used now.
Compare current versions only - 4.5 engine is functionally different
to that of 5 since there is additional functionality which requires
more ram.