Microsoft Security Essentials vs Avira vs avast! vs AVG: Best free anti-virus/anti-malware program for Windows [3rd Edition]
December 18, 2011 402
Email article | Print article 
Without a doubt one of the most popular questions I am asked is “which security software should I use for my computer?” Often times the person asking me the question is looking for a free security solution as opposed to a paid one. To address this question, I have already created a post on best security software. However, now – in this article – I am going to directly address the issue of “should I use Avira, avast!, or AVG?” Of course there are many other free anti-virus/anti-malware software. However, I feel these three are the most popular and most commonly inquired about, hence why I picked them.
Update on December 3, 2010: Because of its growing popularity, and requests made to me by many people, Microsoft Security Essentials is now included in this comparison.
When evaluating security software and trying to decide which one you want to use, there are two main areas which you should look at: Features and performance. So, lets get started.
This review is part of our Best Free Windows Software section. Check out more articles on the best free Windows programs from here.
Table of Contents
Summary of Update
Features Comparison
Performance Comparison
Detection Rates
Malware Removal Effectiveness
Computer Impact
In the 3rd edition of dotTech’s guide on Best Free Windows Anti-Virus/Anti-Malware the following changes have been made:
- Features Comparisonsection has been updated to reflect new features added to Avira Free, avast! Free, AVG Free, and Microsoft Security Essentials since the 2nd edition of this article was written. All four made tweaks and modifications to their existing features; the major new features are:
- Avira Free – “WebGuard”
- avast! Free – Behavior blocker, “Auto Sandbox”, “Script Shield”, “WebRep”
- AVG Free – Largely unchanged
- Microsoft Security Essentials – Behavior blocker, “Network Inspection System”
- Performance Comparison section has been updated to reflect new on-demand and retrospective detection rates for Avira Free, avast! Free, and Microsoft Security Essentials. AVG Free did not participate in the latest retrospective tests so AVG Free’s detection rates have been updated only for on-demand tests.
- Performance Comparison’s sub-section Speed and Computer Usage has been rewritten with a new source and renamed to Computer Impact.
- Performance Comparison now includes a new sub-section, Malware Removal Effectiveness.
(Click on the chart to view it in full size.)
In terms of features, as you can see in the chart above, all four programs provide the necessary fundamental protection. However, it is worth noting that neither of the programs provide full/advanced phishing protection; you will have to cough up money for paid versions to get full/advanced phishing protection. Or, you could just be careful about what links you click; and double-check to make sure the website you are at is who it claims to be since phishing success heavily depends on social engineering and user ambivalence.
Furthermore, while all four programs provide the fundamentals, avast! is the most notable one for going “above and beyond” the basics and providing a little extra bang for the buck (or lack thereof). In other words, avast! provides more “extra” features than the other three, although AVG Free also has some nice extras. It also should be noted Avira Free’s “WebGuard” requires users to install Avira Toolbar, which is powered by Ask.com; and Microsoft Security Essentials has an interesting feature called “Network Inspection System” — a guard against network-based exploits.
Lastly, even though Microsoft Security Essentials is the only one to not prompt users with advertisements it must be noted that the ads in avast! Free are non-intrusive and embedded within the main console window – they are not the popup ads Avira Free is notorious for and AVG Free sometimes displays.
(Click on the chart to view it in full size.)
(Click on the chart to view it in full size.)
When viewing the above test results, keep a few things in mind:
- The On-Demand Anti-Malware Tests are tests done on the security software with all their features enabled (with all settings set to the highest possible). The Retrospective/Proactive Anti-Malware Tests are tests done specifically on the security softwares’ heuristics capabilities; their capabilities to protect against unknown/new malware that have no signatures. It needs to be mentioned that heuristics is not the only feature that security software use against unknown/new malware. Other feature, such as behavior blocking, also help detect unknown/new malware; however only the heuristics feature (and no other features, such as behavior blocking) was tested in the Retrospective/Proactive Anti-Malware Tests.
- For the The On-Demand Anti-Malware Tests
- Microsoft Security Essentials had “very few” false positives; Avira had “few” false positives; avast! had “few” false positives; and AVG had “many” false positives.
- Avira scanned at “fast” speed; avast! scanned at “fast” speed; AVG scanned at “average” speed; and Microsoft Security Essentials scanned at “slow” speed.
- The tests were conducted 1-5 months ago. In other words, Avira, avast!, AVG, and MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials) may have improved (or degraded) their performance since these tests were conducted. These are the versions of each program used for both of the above tests:
- The tests were conducted using the free version of Avira (“Avira AntiVir Personal” is another name for Avira Free); free and paid version of AVG, respectively for each test; and free version of avast!. Microsoft Security Essentials, of course, is free by definition.
Because of the above mentioned points,
- The performance of each software today may be different than when the tests were conducted.
- The performance of the free edition AVG may perform slightly differ than what is shown above since paid version for AVG was used for one test.
However, keeping that in mind, for the purposes of a simple comparison these test results work just fine because they give general indications, which is what we are looking for.
That being said, the results are a clear indication of Avira’s detection superiority. Not only does Avira have the highest on-demand detection rates, but it also tops the chart for retrospective tests; all with fast scanning and few false positives. avast! comes in a close second with healthy on-demand and retrospective rates, fast scanning, and few false positives. MSE is fourth in on-demand detection but does very well in retrospective tests and comes out on top when it comes to false positives. (It should be noted MSE’s lower on-demand rates help it do better in terms of false positives: It detects less so there is less chance of it to have false positives.) AVG, in my opinion, is the most disappointing of the lot. It doesn’t do too badly in on-demand but does terrible for retrospective and has many false positives.
Based off just these test results, Avira and avast! are definitely my two top picks, with MSE a close third. However, the tests were conducted in a lab setting for benchmark purposes. In other words, they don’t exactly reflect “real life”. In real-life usage the protection between all four program will be similar because most user activity will fall within areas covered by all four. I may be a bit bold when I say this but the differences between all four software will typically only be felt when conducting benchmarks or tests.
(Click on the chart to view it in full size.)
Being able to detect malware has value in of itself; simply knowing you are infected is worthwhile. However, an anti-virus/anti-malware program that cannot remove malware is probably one you don’t want to have. Hence in the 3rd edition of dotTech’s guide on Best Free Windows Anti-Virus/Anti-Malware we look at the results of a malware removal effectiveness test.
Before we discuss the results it must be noted this malware removal effectiveness test had limited scope — it only used ten samples. It is hard, and frankly not fair or logical, to draw authoritative conclusions based on a test that only used ten samples. However, for the purposes of a non-authoritative indicator, this test will do just fine… as long as you keep in mind the limited scope.
That said, Avira once again tops the charts. MSE comes in a close second with AVG and avast! lagging as distant third and fourth, respectively. As I said, this test used only ten samples so we can’t say avast! or AVG are incompetent at removing malware while Avira or MSE are the best. The results very well could have been different if different ten malware samples were picked. (That is why having a large, randomized sample size is important in any test.) However, I believe it is fair to say with its combined stellar performance on-demand and retrospective detection rates and malware removal effectiveness, Avira more than makes up in performance what it lacks in features.
(Click on the chart to view it in full size.)
(Click on the chart to view it in full size.)
(Click on the chart to view it in full size.)
NOTE: Avira Free 2012, avast! Free v6, AVG AntiVirus 2012, and Microsoft Security Essentials v2.1 were used for the above tests.
Generally speaking, the computer impact of all four software is about the same. True, avast! does come out on top but only by a small margin; and this small margin will only be noticed when benchmarking — not in real-life usage. Really the only test worth noting is opening Word and opening PDF. In this test avast! out shines the other three on the first run (subsequent run they all perform the same). All other aspects of the Computer Impact test end up with results that are too close to draw lines between.
(For those that don’t know, PC Mark is a professional, industry-recognized benchmarking tool. The higher PC Mark score, the better. However, when it comes to PC Mark, few points here and there have no significant meaning. If PC Mark scores were drastically different, such as 50 or more, then it would be worth looking at.)
Note: All tests referenced in all Performance Comparison sub-sections of this article were not conducted by dotTech. They (the tests) were conducted by AV-Comparatives.org, an authority on security software testing. I attained permission to re-publish AV-Comparatives’ results on dotTech when I originally wrote this article.
While there are some noteworthy aspects – such as Microsoft Security Essential’s low false positive count or avast!’s lowest computer impact or Avira’s best detection and removal performance – there is no one “winner” between Microsoft Security Essentials, Avira Free, avast! Free, and AVG Free. To try to determine which one is the “best” is like trying to split hairs; it is hard to do and it hurts. In real-life situations, all four programs will provide users with excellent protection.
However, with that being said, if I were to rank these four I would rank Avira and avast! as my top two picks; Avira for its detection and malware removal and avast! for its features and lowest computer impact. Microsoft Security Essentials and AVG come after Avira and avast!, with each providing one or two unique features that have potential to win over users.
Now, what program you should use comes down to your specific needs and desires. Want the most features? avast! Free is the way to go. Are you looking for the best detection rates and don’t care about anything else? Avira Free is for you. Want a simple anti-malware program that provides great protection without nagging ads? Microsoft Security Essentials beckons you. Worried about network security? Microsoft Security Essentials’ “Network Inspection System” may serve you well. Are you a social network addict? Go with AVG Free for it has “Social Network Protection”. Hate false positives? Avoid AVG and consider Microsoft Security Essentials. Dislike slow scan times? Don’t get Microsoft Security Essentials. Surf the web a lot, besides your frequent websites? avast! Free’s “Web Shield” provides better specialized protection in that area than the other three programs. Download lots of software? avast! Free’s “Auto Sandbox” may be your next best friend.
I have provided you with the facts; now the choice of Microsoft Security Essentials, Avira Free, avast! Free, or AVG free is in your hands. Whichever one you pick, rest assured all four will serve you well.
Avira Free AntiVirus
Supported OS: Windows 2000+
Avira AntiVir Personal homepage [download link]
avast! Free Antivirus
Supported OS: Windows XP+
avast! Free Antivirus homepage [download link]
AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition
Supported OS: Windows 2000+
AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition homepage [download link]
Microsoft Security Essentials
Supported OS: Windows XP and higher
Microsoft Security Essentials homepage
Originally written on February 14, 2010. 2nd edition posted on December 3, 2010. 3rd edition posted on December 18, 2011.
![Why I switched from Avast to Avira: better computer performance and speed [Opinion]](http://cdn.dottech.org/media/2013/03/speed-134x90.jpg)
![[Android] Avira Free Android Security helps locate your lost device, remotely lock and wipe data, block unwanted SMS and calls, and more](http://cdn.dottech.org/media/2013/01/unnamed-41-134x90.jpg)
FWIW:
False positives are a *huge* problem; probably a bigger problem than false negatives because if you have too many fp’s then — sooner or later — you’re likely to assume an fp that isn’t.
In my experience, Avira is *horrible* at false positives (that’s mostly why they’re so good at false negatives); MSE and AVG somewhat (but not much) better. In fact, Avast and (the payware Nod32) are the only *reliable* products for false positives. Basically, if Avast tells you something is infected, you’d better believe it.
Are all equal in system impact? Not in *my experience*. Aside from qualitative observations about sluggishness (not at all with Avast and MSE; noticeable with Avira & AVG) there are also issues with *stability* on my systems. Although none of these products are as bad as Norton or Kaspersky, I have had *too* many problems with Avira to try it again.
Bottom-line, for *years* I roamed between the payware and freeware antimalware solutions; burdening my system with all manner of AV, antispyware, behavior blockers, and firewalls…AND being completely disturbed by their performance; both in effectiveness and system impact.
Just about 1 year ago, I did 3 things: I dual-booted Linux & Win 7; after using both I find myself relying on Linux more and more BUT I still use Win 7 quite a bit. Second, I dumped ALL security software on Win 7 and installed Avast Free; that plus a router is ALL that I need, everything is faster and easier and I’ve remained virus-free. Third I stopped using registry cleaners.
The result of this is that I’ve not had to restore my Win 7 system (via a Paragon image backup) in over a year. Prior to that, I was restoring it *at least* every month because *something* was always going wrong. Mostly, this has been due to staying away from registry cleaning but it also is due to Avast and how it is effective without ANY noticeable system impact.
Use what you want but I’m sticking with Avast.
Thanks for the update, Ashraf!
When I got my first PC (a Tandy from Radio Shack, in the late 80s) I never heard of a computer virus, so it wasn’t until I bought my first Windows machine in the mid-90s that I even had an a/v. McAfee, of course. Over the years I have used many a/v products, but avast! is what I have settled on for the past several. What I like best about avast! is that it just sits there and does the job it is supposed to do without calling attention to itself. If not for the popup I see when it updates, I think I would forget it was there.
Thanks for the update Ashraf, btw love this site! I know your not suppose to run more than one antivirus program but I’m running 3! Doesn’t look like I have any issues but who knows. I’m running Windows 7 64 with 6 gigs of ram. Using Avast, MSE and Panda Cloud with Comodo Firewall.
I’m running MSE 4.0.1111.0 (which is in beta, soon to be final) flawlessly on a Windows 7 Ultimate system. I download and test lots of software lots of which is crap. Instant virus detection by MSE, never infected. These test results are WAY out of date and shouldn’t be useful as a guide to the current AV versions. That’s always the problem with software test sites – software is updated too frequently that by the time tests are published they are out of date. Comodo free firewall provides a super extra level of protection – I highly recommend it.
Its rare that anyone reviews Rising Free Anti-Virus but it has served me well on 3 computers and is very customizable.
In my 15 years of home computing, i have never had any serious infections or malware takeover, etc., but i can’t claim that going forward… I’ve been using MSE since I got Windows 7, 2 years ago.
Recently, while looking for a page to watch a specific new tv show episode from abroad, I got taken over by Windows 7 AntiVirus 2012, a malware which hijacked my IE9 & stopped me from doing much else than continually viewing fake alerts to convince me to purchase their “product”. I stopped it in its tracks & used everything at my disposal from Spypot to Spyware Doctor & AdAware, etc back to MSE, they cleaned everything out… My IE9 is kaput & thoroughly unsavable?!?
BUT shouldn’t MSE have stopped it in its tracks in the 1st place when I keep it updated & fully functional on a daily basis? My trip to webpages did not include ANY downloading of programs but hijacked I was & IE9 is dead!
Whatis there to do & shall I move onto Avira?
My two cents:
1. AVAST has annoying file footprint database,which breaks and takes long to run, but is necessary?
2. Runs in DOS Mode, Why needed?
3. Has no boot disk for antivirus
4. Antivir has boot disk ( you must remake it daily to be current)
5. AVG has Surf protector, auto-updating boot disk, annoying pop-ups telling of updates, many false-positives -despite an Exceptions List.
6.. See: http://av-test.org/ for most current info on viri.
@greg bern: Installing in Safe Mode is a good feature to have; you are right it is useful to know which programs will do it. Also you should look at rescue disks — almost all vendors provide bootable rescue disks for infected comps.
@acr: Does AVG 2012 have a behavior blocker? I could find not a mention in features list and I installed the program on my spare laptop and didn’t find it. (I will look again).
Identity Protection was in AVG when I wrote the 2nd edition of this article, hence why it isn’t “new”.
Has Panda Free gotten big? To be honest I haven’t been following it. I may add it to this article at a later date.
@jayesstee: You are welcome!
@vdw: Next update, hopefully.
@Free Zer Burn: False positives are a problem.
When I used to use Avira a few years back it was known to have lots of false positives. However, based off the tests conducted, Avira has “few” false positives so I couldn’t legitimately say “the tests say few but a couple years back it was like this”.
That said, I also am a fan of avast!
@Seamus McSeamus: You are welcome!
@Muzikgod: You are welcome! And I’m glad you like dotTech :-) And yes, that is overkill :-P I’m guessing you have a really fast CPU to be able to run all that and not feel any decrease in performance.
@Marc Weiss: I’m fairly certain MSE 2.1 is the stable version while MSE 3 (4?) is in Beta.
And you are right some of the tests are slightly dated although I disagree with the sentimental “WAY” outdated. That is just the nature of the beast: Impossible to have 100% update-to-date test results simply because of how quickly software is being updated.
@Frank J: Maybe I will add Rising to the next update. We shall see.
@Cooper: Your first fault was using IE9 :-P Just kidding. MSE doesn’t have a “web guard” but you are right MSE should have stopped it. Not sure why it didn’t.
@Donald Bock: Thanks for your “two cents”! :-)
I know about av-test.org but I prefer av-comparatives.org. Maybe in the future I will change my source if there is a viable reason to do so.
@acr: I believe the behavior blocker in avast was activated earlier in 2011. At least, it was supposed to be.
@Ashraf:
Identity Protection is a behavior blocker. It was formerly known as Sana Security Primary Response Safe Connect but Sana Security was bought out by Grisoft (AVG). Identity Protection is really an “anti-bot” program, as that was it’s original purpose. AVG renamed the Safe Connect program Identity Protection. Also, AVG used to sell IP as a stand alone program but no longer does.
Panda Cloud is getting very big as they seem to continue to have very good detection rates in malware tests. Panda Cloud also seems to be getting good reports across many of the security sites and blogs.
@Ashraf: ok thanks, I’ll check into whether this was implemented …
On another security topic, interesting that I had Norton DNS installed and was not allowed access to an article that criticized a Norton program. But I uninstalled Norton DNS and access was allowed. See the link here-
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=314445 So is Norton censoring the web with its DNS filter?
@acr: This issue may be country specific, or some other reason, as some people claim to be able to access the Norton article even though Norton DNS is installed.
@Cooper: I got hit by several of these drive-by attacks while using Avira, and this is just purely from browsing. That is why I’ve opted to go with avast because I think a webguard is crucial for antivirus protection. And using a Chromium browser because of its sandbox technology helps too.
Oh and make sure UAC is enabled!
@acr: Interesting. I read that thread but I am not sure if it is possible to censor a web page like that (i.e. you can visit the website bur it gives you a page not found). It may have been some sort of bug. Thanks for pointing it out.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/removal/avc_removal_2011.pdf
@acr: Thanks for clearing that up. I have double-checked and you are right.
Minor update to article: Features Comparison chart has been updated to clarify AVG Free does have a behavior blocker.
@Donald Bock: Yeah, what about it?
@Harry HAre:
Yeah, I think Ashraf should do benchmark tests on memory usages. Memory usage is the only parameter that really matters when installing an AV on an older PC.
Another matter: Avira detection rate is famous, but does Avira also manage to delete all that it detects?
@Corno: 2nd edition of this article had benchmarks on memory usage; Avast topped in that benchmark.
Avira has the best removal rates, shown in the Malware Removal Effectiveness section of this article :-)
COMODO is the best firewall ever
Thank you for this update, Ashraf !
But it seems to me that the question still remains about which is the best anti-virus : Avira or Avast.
In fact, if Avast could match Avira for its detection and removal rates I would go with Avast and if Avira could offer a little bit more options I would stop thinking to go with Avast…
Season’s Greetings to all !
@kljlkjljlk: Debatable.
@Sputnik: Yeah, it is hard to decide between the two… You are welcome!
I installed MSE on my Windows 7 professional PC with the latest Virus update, after 1-2 days on the web (mainly Youtube), it is infected with the “Win 7 Antivirus” Virus, does anyone has such an experience? Unfortunately for me, I have made a “disk image” with Acronis True image I can recover my original clean installation. But this has happened twice in the past 3-4 days. Any suggestion what I should do to protect my PC?, what if I install Avira or avast or AVG? I appreciate any suggestions?
Thanks
CY
avira is the best :D
@farzan: @farzan: