- #BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC FOR MAC#
- #BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC SOFTWARE#
- #BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC MAC#
- #BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC WINDOWS#
F-Secure and Intego delayed the test procedure by 21 to 35 seconds. Bitdefender and Sophos Home did just as good a job at detection, but required as much as 6 to 13 seconds more time. All these packages also achieved the 100 percent mark in detection. Those levels are actually unnoticeable in everyday use. The security packages for consumer users from Kaspersky Lab, Trend Micro and Symantec added a load of a mere 1 to 2 additional seconds when copying and downloading.
#BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC MAC#
Using this method, it quickly becomes apparent which antivirus solution requires too many resources in everyday use, thereby slowing down a Mac system. The exactly identical copying procedure and the same downloads were then repeated with each security solution installed, and the times were measured. On the reference system, the copying took 147 seconds, and the downloads lasted 56 seconds. In addition, various downloads were performed, and these times were also recorded. In evaluating this criterion, the testers copied a selection of files on a reference system encompassing a volume of 27.28 GB, clocking the time necessary for the operation. The fact that those days are now over can be seen in the test segment on speed. In the past, many Mac security packages demonstrated a conspicuously high system load. Lots of protection with a low system load Likewise, high detection rates among corporate solutions were reached by ESET, McAfee and Sophos. For consumer users, the packages from Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Trend Micro demonstrated superb detection rates between 99 and 100 percent. While these are innocuous on a Mac, in a mixed network, malware could thus hide on a Mac – especially when it is used as a server.
#BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC WINDOWS#
In an additional test, the detection performance of Windows files was also evaluated. Endpoint Security from McAfee experienced a minor detection error: 99.6 percent. The security package from Comodo only detected an unacceptable 38.1 percent.Īmong the solutions for corporate users, the products from ESET, SentinelOne and Sophos detected all attackers 100 percent. F-Secure delivered a somewhat weaker performance with 93.8 percent. Intego overlooked a few malware samples, yet still attained a good 99.4 percent. In the test involving packages for home users, a total of 6 out of 9 packages detected the 514 selected MacOS attackers: Avast, Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab, Sophos, Symantec and Trend Micro. High detection rates for many security packages None of the security packages switched off the internal protection functions of MacOS Sierra. The solutions were installed in the test as additional protection for MacOS Sierra.
#BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC SOFTWARE#
SentinelOne Next Generation Endpoint Security Software 2.0Īll versions were evaluated under identical iMacs running on MacOS Sierra 10.12.6.
#BEST VIRUS DETECTION FOR MAC FOR MAC#
Kaspersky Lab Internet Security for Mac 18.0 The first 9 on the list are for home users: The laboratory of AV-TEST examined a total of 13 products under MacOS Sierra.
Of course, this is all in regard to enterprise level versions of each software.Put to the test: 9 products for home users, 4 solutions for business users I wish I could convince the powers that be to make the move, but I don’t have that kind of pull here. Needless to say we were still running it several years later (on newer hardware, thankfully) when I transferred to my current company. Aside from the systems just generally being slow, we never had reports of performance hits when Avast would run tasks of any kind. The higher end of these systems were only sporting 1 gig of DDR2 memory. When I started using Avast, I was sys admin for a K-12 school district overseeing 1000+ desktops all pushing 10 years old (designed for Windows XP, but running 7 due to EOL). Not only was the threat/infection detection great and I got notifications almost immediately, but I was blown away by how light the software is on the endpoints. McAfee is great in regard to the infection detection, but suffered the same impact on performance.īut Avast thoroughly impressed.
I considered Norton to be a virus we paid for. Systems would slow to a crawl (even newer systems bolstering fairly high specs).
Infections would go un-noticed for days/weeks. Norton was consistently a problem for me. In my experience I’ve worked with Avast, Norton, and McAfee.
0 kommentar(er)
