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)
I switched several months ago for the free Rising 2009 AV and found it quite secure and at the same time verly light, event lighter than Avira 8 & 9. The 2010 version has just been released and it would be great if you could also benchmark it : it’s on http://www.freerav.com.
avg and avast gave my machine headaches, some serious — freezes, a couple lock outs. both were problematic to uninstall completely.
switched to avira — no problems
AVAST never installed properly onto my computer. that last percent always gets “frozen”… but after I exited it and run the application, it seems to work well… dunno why. Anyways, Avast is kick butt, it has nice feactures like you said above. :D
Though, I already have NOD32 and Malwarebyte Pro so I pretty much have no need for anything else. ;)
Oh, you should also do a review between Online Armor and some other Anti-virus programs.
Man Online Armor has way too many unnecessary pop ups saying “is this safe?” blah blah blah. LoL.
~Joji~
I wonder if you could run Avast! and Avira together, hmmm
Experience and surf info feedback:
I have never experienced an update problem with Avira free (the first update after install will take 5-10 min, then after, everything is smooth and fast)
I wouldn’t rely on Armor Online AV. The firewall is probably the best there is, but the AV isn’t much.
Malwarebyte’s was probably the best free antimalware tool, but nowadays I would advise SuperAntispyware for on demand scans. As an AV occasional online scan recommandation, I would advise FSecure; after all they are the best commercial AV as today with G Data Security.
Personnaly, I protect my PC with Avira free, Online Armor pro (or free) Asquared pro and the occasional scans already mentioned and til now, no problems
(XP sp3 & Win 7)
I’ve tried them all and keep going back to AVAST, it worked so well that I got the pro version. It catches things even before you download it.
Great analysis.
Vidimo Se!
@Samuel:
You can install them together on the same system but you have to be careful to use only one as a real time protection and the other for only on demand scans.
This involves customizing at the time of installation and disabling all real time options of one of the antivirus.
I did that on one of my systems where avira was actively running and I configured Avast as to run on demand scans only. Disabling real time of one is the only option if u want to avoid conflicts, I suppose.
@s: That would work but my idea was to have all the real time scaners on. On my current machine I have AVG, Webroot Internet Security Essentials, MSE, and ThreatFire protecting my system with all the real time protections on.
@Samuel: You mean AVG, Webroot Security & MSE are running real time (with real time antivirus enabled for all) together on the same system. And they have not run into conflicts so far. But how do you know that some major conflict is not going to happen? Dont u think that running 3 real time antivirus engines is a bigger threat in itself than some infection which could be found out & repaired through on demand scans if your single antivirus real time scanner misses. of course you can run 2,3 real time antispywares, behavoiur blockers whatever with one real time antivirus. Maybe you have done it in some special way, you will know better.
@s: I’ve been doing it for a while actually and all’s good. While have multiple real times can cause problems it really depends on which ones, and it seems I hit the nail on three that work togther fine.
i’ve tried all three but it’s avira that has kept me safe the longest. i’m still using it up to now but haven’t experienced any major attacks.
While I am obviously biased (as I work for AVG), let me just point out that relying on a single tester for detection is in my opinion not the best approach. AV-Comparatives uses a quite obsolete collection of malware and the proactive detection is based on very old (one year) versions with a bit questionable approach. To get better results, I would suggest to at least have a look at some other good testing labs, such as AV-Test.org or Virus Bulletin. As an example, Virus Bulletin measures detection results for malware that really is prevalent and spreading, not some old collection of scripts (including batch files that only say ‘Booh, I am a virus!’). Their Reactive and Proactive detection results are available free on their website. Moreover, the simple ‘on-demand scan’ test does not reflect if a particular threat is blocked before it can actually infect your system – e.g. AVG LinkScanner block many threats that can only spread via web before they can reach your PC, thus minimizing the need to create definitions for them.
Anyway, my key point is that any single test is biased and for a fair comparison of product performance, you should definitely use more sources. AV-Comparatives is just one of them.
I am very impressed with Karel’s honest admission of whom he/she works for. I use free AVG and I have found no probs ever for 5 years.
Maybe it’s like the gold brick I bought from man on the road once. Only $2000. He told me it would protect my house from Alligators and little green men from Mars.
I have seen neither since I bought it.
I’ve been using AVG for almost one year and I thought its detection rates were higher, a lot higher…This results show me the path I should take: Avast!
I know Avast isn’t the best in detecting viruses and malware but it isn’t far away from Avira. I’ve always hated Avira for its offer window that pops from nowhere like a big bad virus that controls my computer AHHHH! I just couldn’t take it so I uninstalled it as fast as my hand could reach the mouse (Did Avira do the same thing for everyone?).
Moreover, I’m a feature lover. Althought an anti-virus shouldn’t have those things, it gives a great touch of originality which I doubt is available in other AVs.
I have an important question and I’m sorry if someone already asked: Does the features of avast! interfer with PC Tools Firewall Plus?
Thanks for your answer.
I’ve been switching between Avira and Avast! for the last year or so and could only say that Avast! was the one that satisfied my usability needs.
Avira really have some problems with their update servers which for a realtime signature-based scanner is of major importance. Comparatively, my Avast! install hasn’t missed any updates whenever one is available everytime I boot up my computer.
Another thing to mention about avast is that the new version 5 has caching systems which really speeds up things like application launches and re-scans therefore being really low when it comes to the I/O department. Rising AV had this feature too when I tried it but only limited to temporary cache and doesn’t have the persistent cache that avast5 has.
The posted figure about avast taking long to scan a 13 GB drive was because there was no existing cache for avast yet. I’m sure the scan time will drastically change when the same files are re-scanned.
As for detection and disinfection, well let’s leave those to the experts :D
Hi ASHRAF!!
Great review as usual!!
Yes, I totally agree with you!!
The new features of AVAST! v5.0 are simply amazing and have really intrigued me too as some of them are not present even in the AVIRA PREMIUM ($$$) version.
And now I have a fancy that AVIRA will soon release a new version of its FREE flagship adding new features to it similar to those present in AVAST in order to avoid or at least to curb the migration of their users towards the new AVAST version….LOL!
What do you make of it?
That said, let me add a couple of notes that I think you missed in your review:
1)on the AVAST FORUM (and BLOG) the developer said that the new AVAST version has bridged the gap with AVIRA as far as the lamware detection rate is concerned and the next AV COMPARATIVES report will publicly prove that, although on its last August report it had already downgraded AVIRA beneath AVAST (v.4.8) because of the AVIRA high false positive detection rate problem (still present now). One more reason to move to AVAST: do you agree with me??!!
2) the AVIRA UPDATE SIGNATURES SERVICE gave me lots of problems in the past as I was often unable to update their signature database due to several problems occurred on their servers and this, if you don’t mind, is a big CON for an Antivirus program, isn’t it? I often complained about it on their SUPPORT FORUM but the only reply I got from them was to be patient or better still to move to AVIRA PREMIUM (and spend MONEY of course…LOL!!). On the other hand AVAST seems to work smoothly from this point of view. So I think you should add this fact on your review because, if you encounter problems to update the signatures database almost on a daily basis, the AV program becomes pretty useless or ineffective. Do you agree with me, buddy??,
3) in addition to AVIRA, AVAST and AVG, I think it would be a good idea to write one day a review of the freeware PANDA CLOUD ANTIVIRUS talking about the PROS & CONS related to the new generation of AV programs based on the “cloud” technology that, as you should know, don’t need any signatures update to work properly while surfing on the web: are you aware of them??
Please note that, according to the reliable PC magazine “PC WORLD”, PANDA CLOUD ANTIVIRUS is currently the FREE AV with the higher laware detection rate out there (an impressive 99.4%, so even higher than AVIRA itself) and, if PANDA CLOUD ANTIVIRUS has not been tested by AV COMPARATIVES till now, it’s only because so far the methodologies employed by AV-COMPARATIVES never included the cloud-scanning components of products such as PANDA CLOUD ANTIVIRUS that incorporate not only signature-based cloud-scanning but also cloud-heuristics (but it’s rumored that AV-COMPARATIVES will include this on their next report…so let’s wait & see…LOL!!).
4) finally, why not write a post asking Dottech readers what combination of (FREE) security programs they use to protect their system?
As everybody knows or should know, having a great AV software such as AVIRA or AVAST is not enough to protect your PC from malware when combined with a poor FIREWALL, ANTISPYWARE, ANTIKEYLOGGER, ANTIROOTKIT, HIPS program or whatever else extra layer protection available on the market.
But, as you know, the problem is that many award-winning (free) security programs out there are not compatible between them, making the choice of their best combination more difficult.
That’s why a review about this issue would be very much appreciated in order to establish which combination of security (compatible) programs is the BEST (and I’m quite confident to help you and your readers on this matter…you know, I’m not signing myself as “KING OF FREEBIES” for nothing….LOL!).
Waiting for your feedback!
@giovanni: http://dottech.org/ask-dottechies/12617
All this and the recommendations are so timely! After tripping over my old laptop for months, I finally decided to take it to the office and just set it up there. Lo and behold, my AVG subscription had expired. So I proceded to remove AVG and download the free Avast.
Downloading went quickly but the first complete scan took forever – 1 3/4 hours! (Hopefully the caching will shorten that in the future.) Avast found one infected file in all that time in all those files!
Keep in mind, this laptop has not been in use for months and the last scan was via AVG paid. Based on comments by all of you who are a lot more knowledgeable than me, no AV is 100%. So one missed file out of close to 90,000 files isn’t bad for AVG stats.
At any rate, I will keep Avast on that machine and see how I like it. I do know I like the verbal “finished scanning” – maybe that’s just a girl-thing – but it will be handy.
Thanks for all the great info!
Ashraf, Thanks for putting together this article. I had been looking for a comparison between 2 basically, Avast & Avira. AVG was never on my Hit-list..:lol
Well I go with Avast, the best after Eset I used lately..
@ future hacker – no avast! doesn’t interfers with PC Tools Firewall Plus, as Vast doe not include a firewall of its own.
Thanks,
Grr
@Samuel: What type of websites do you visit? =P.
But seriously, isn’t that much protection a bit overkill? Especially for a tech-savvy person like you.
@JCR:
Thanks J – that’s appreciated. I did try
Asrafs tip to remove the nag screen but
couldn’t get that to work – will try again
sometime!
Avast seems to come out very well at the
moment – will monitor the situation on
another machine!
Ashraf, another good review as usual. I think it is great the time you spend trying to enlighten people and hope that you will continue to do so.
I found the comparisons quite interesting. I have been using AVG for the past few years with no problems and have not had to format and re-install due to a virus or any other bug. I have had very good luck with AVG and as of now, I will continue using it. I also have my daughter and her family using AVG with no problems.
@Ashraf: It is somewhat I suppose. First I must admit that when I started using this combo Webroot was just Anti-Spyware, so I really only had AVG as my everything. On top of that MSE is really the new version of Windows Defender which comes with Vista and 7 so MSE isn’t an extra more like an upgrade. As to why I keep Webroot and AVG now that Webroot is Antivirus too is that I’ve learnt that they play off each others strengths, for instance:
AVG’s Email protection integrates with Outlook so that no matter how you get your email or if its encrypted or not AVG can stills can it. Webroot only scans POP3/SMPT port traffic, so no IMAP and no SSL/TSL scanning. On the flip side though, Webroot has a much more powerful program scanner, it will even load a program into protected memory, scan it, and only if it passes muster let it run. AVG can’t do that.
Also helps that Webroot now has a Firewall along with a “File Cleaner” which removes unneeded files from your system, sort of like Windows Disk Cleaner on steroids. I got over 80 GB back on one drive (and then I promptly refilled it :D).
I wonder if there is a difference between the false positives that get reported in the free and pro versions. I’ve been running Avira Pro for about 9 months and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a false positive. Of course, I’ve only had a couple of virus/malware alerts in that time too.
I haven’t had any trouble with the automated updates either.
@karen:
Yes, same here. No trouble with updates or false positives. there were probs with slow update servers for free versions earlier but that has been sorted out. Regarding FPs most home users shouldnt have any.
And no there cant be any difference between Fps in the free version and the full one because Fps dont occur because of reduced functionality of the free version as these are wrong detections by the antivirus.
But its a big trouble if you worry more about FPs than the viruses or trojans and let the infections enter your system because your antivirus with low FPs misses many infections, its detection rate being below to that of competitors in the business.
I think you should be more worried about the malware if ur system has imp. data in it and you use your system for any type of financial transactions. Thats why it is more imp for me to defend my system from maximum no. of viruses and trojans and so I cant settle for anything which has less detection rate than Avira. At least independent and impartial testing tells you best about Avira’s detection rates. I will consider the results of future tests if these change. But for now its only Avira and its completely trouble free for me.