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)
@Ashraf: So ha. 101. No longer special :D
@Locutus: You killed the conversation, noooooooooooooooooooo.
(JK.)
@Ashraf: *hears crickets chirping*
@Bob:
Avira’s is well known for detection not for its interfaces. Instead somebody finds its interface more technical.
@s:
Protection against high risk files nor suspicious websites is done through sandbox. No free antivirus in this list provides this. In its previous version Rising free version provided sandbox feature. I don’t know whether it is in their present version.
Hi Ashraf,
I hope that next time you would include other free AV as well, such as
Microsoft Security Essential,
Forticlient,
RisingAV,
ComodoAV,
PCToolsAV,
PreventonAV,
Immunet,
PandaCloud.
Thank you.
I work on alot of computers and when it comes to older computers I normally put AVG for performance. If its a newer computer with more RAM I normally put aVast! I have for years now used aVast and recommend it. Years ago I wasn’t sure which one I preferred but over all aVast seems to work well with the other programs I use.
I have never used Avira but most of my clients don’t know anything about computers in the first place and would probably freak if it has alot of false positives.
@Dean – I’d be very grateful to you if you could explain why you suggest that the next time around it would be worthwhile reviewing Microsoft Security Essential,Forticlient,RisingAV,ComodoAV,PCToolsAV,
PreventonAV,Immunet & PandaCloud? Do they have some useful features which these 3 don’t. Grateful if you’d share it please because a larger mkt share app though reflective of consumer preference need not necessarily be the best. Therefore please share your thoughts.
@Brockenstein – That’s a whole new, exciting & useful insight. AVG for old computers & Avast for new ones. Could you share with us as to why you feel so
@Sujay – Absolutely right! If 2 AV’s are feature equivalent but one has a sandbox as well then the one with a sandbox pips the other to the post precisely because having a sandbox accomplishes things which not having a sandbox cannot accomplish. I do wish that from now onwards all AV’s offer a sandbox too! Splendid point you made.
Ramesh :)
Whilst I still use Avira
and Win Patrol with OnlineAmor
and there seems to be some good advice by the comments I have read….
Surely the best Free protection against viruses and spyware is actually niether
Avira Avast or AVG but Sandboxie?
Don’t forget you don’t have to restrict Sanndboxie to just browser threats, you can open e-mail and their attachments inside Snandboxie or you could open video/photo files in Sanboxie, in fact virtually any program….even MSN messenger or Skpe in Sanndboxie, safe in the knowledge that if a virus of spyware is picked up it won’t get further than the within the walls of the sandbox and therefore keeping your computer completely safe.
I also notice one other thing from Microsoft.I do not yet know if it is just a “fad” or a “trend”. In terms of features, Microsoft in its OS seems to be doing “backward integration” aka baking into the OS added functionalities which earlier existed as standalone apps.
At one time they added a browser into the OS (Internet Explorer), later they added an Email Client (Outlook Express) & in Win7 they added an app which calculates the no. of days between two dates. Earlier standalone 3rd party apps used to do this.
If this strategy from Microsoft is not a “fad” but a trend perhaps in a subsequent version of OS Microsoft might offer a sandbox as well. Microsoft Security Essential is presently a standalone app which exists on an “apart-from-the-OS” basis. I wouldn’t be surprised if like other functionalities an AV also gets baked into their OS one day. Since 2 AV’s cannot co-exist (due to software clash) that one single action would not only improve Microsoft OS market share further but also incidentally & regretfully be a body blow to 3rd party AV’s. Perhaps anti-trust laws may not permit this e.g. Europe today protests an email client from being bundled in Windows OS licensed in Europe.
Such a strategy (bundling AV) would also enable Microsoft to compete even more effectively with Linux or Apple; Who knows.
Be that as it may I hope all AV’s now offer sandbox too by way of being proactive. Not only would it help the AV’s compete more effectively with each other but also with Microsoft future versions of OS as well. The consumer too would benefit.
Of course this is assuming that future version of Microsoft OS “backward integrate proactively” aka feature benefit not like “ribbon” or a “new gui” but feature benefits like “Sandboxie”.
Ramesh :)
@Ramesh Kumar: For the recorded Win7 is actually a step away from integration, since a lot of programs that use to be built in are now extra downloads.
As to integration being a “fad” for Microsoft, it’s not. Far from it in fact. One of the main reasons Microsoft is disliked by the EU and the DOJ is that Microsoft has a history of integration, which both think is illegal.
As to integrated AV, both Vista and 7 have Windows Defender built in as well as Windows Firewall, though I admit neither is great. And IE8 be default is sandboxed.
And don’t forget my system before you say you can’t have more than one AV.
Ramesh, I think Sandboxie has come of age now and really should be right up there as far as recognition goes with Antivirus.
Almost every novice user knows of or has heard of the term “antivirus”…….but not that many as a percentage of current PC users around the wold let alone novices have heard of the term “Sandbox”
Incorporating Sandboxes with Operating System and antivirus set ups would be quite an effective way to get Sandboxing out to the masses.
Another way to popularise it instantly would be for Google to buy out Sandboxie and repackage it as a Google application for the masses.
Although I hear Chrome already runs in a sandbox, I’m not sure how this compares to Sandboxie and also as I mentioned earlier Sandboxie isn’t restricted to just protecting you whilst you surf but with other things like e-mail,opening video files, photos, using MSN messenger….the list goes on!
The only problem with Sandboxie becoming too popularised is that, particularly under the control of Microsoft, sandbox technology may well be compromised as with nearly everything Microsoft touches.
Right now Sandboxie is the best free protection and products like Ge Swall can’t really compete.
If anyone is still using browser crippling extensions like No Script then its time you got
got rid of No Script and start using Sanboxie that way you get your browser back and surf without worrying about malicious scripts and still stay safe!
@KL: They took out Outlook Express in Windows 7, now it’s a downloadable extra (Windows Live Mail).
@Samuel
Chief I am delighted when you agree with me & equally delighted even when you correct me. I’ve articulated earlier on this blogsite that I admire your honesty & intellect & that everyone can benefit from it because it is somewhat rare finding someone who is a good human even though he is bright……especially nowadays!
They seem to make very few of those nowadays or at least very few appearing jointly on a single blogsite at a single moment. Now we know why there are so much positive vibes on Ashraf’s site.
I’ll no longer surmise “whether” backward integration in Microsoft is a trend or a fad. It is a trend.
Chief I distinctly remember your using “3 AV’s together scanning real time” in your post on this very thread. I said what I did because as far as I know you are the only one with the savviness to do it & benefit from it.
I fondly hope (once again) that after you are through with your 3 articles you’d do one on that since you found my thought/suggestion/request interesting! Once again I repeat that it would help many. Even you’d be surprised at how many would thank you either in writing or in their hearts. Incidentally it would also drive up user base of Avast, Avira & AVG.
To supplement it with “commercial streetsmarts” Avast, Avira & AVG) could consider getting in touch with Ashraf for hosting those exe.s If Ashraf found that makes mutual commercial sense to this blogsite & to them then & obviously only then would Ashraf choose to host it.
I say this because I intuit that this post & this blogsite has impressed developers &/or employees of Avast, AVG & Avira not only for its being a bright blogsite but also excellent positive vibes aka community spirit & honesty. Again in terms of commercial street smarts all 3 Avast, Avira & AVG would have sensed the enormous trust all visitors of this blogsite have placed in their trustworthy & lovable webmaster. Believe me that kind of equity is rare to find.When Ashraf says it is good, we download.Period.
Btw just like there are very few “bright cum good humans” there are very few “bright cum good blogsites as well!
Ramesh
@Ramesh Kumar: I think I’m going to have a permanent blush soon!
Yes, it was on this thread I said it, though I think I also mentioned it on Ashraf’s “What AV do you use” poll. In addition, I wouldn’t use the term “savviness”, more like chutzpah.
The rest is for Ashraf to respond to really. (Ashrad, that’s your que!)
@KL
Hi! Am in total agreement with you on most points & seek a clarification only on 2:-
1)Bundling sandboxie with Microsoft OS would spoil sandboxie because Microsoft has a propensity to spoil an app which gets baked in. I could not grasp why you say this?
2)Disabling NoScript. I could not grasp why you say this?
Ramesh :)
@Ramesh Kumar: In reply to #2, it cripples the web. The internet is so much better with JS enabled and with Sandboxing software it is just as safe if not safer.
@Locutus
Exactly. I use JS always. Both JS & Sandboxie are good
Personally, I use Vipre – not free… I find it’s excellent – very quick, doesn’t slow down the system at all! There had been a number of false positives, but I emailed them the file and they quickly took care of the problem.
As far as free versions go – I find that Avast at the moment is the one to use, but it’s not a permanent thing, as I’ve seen versions of AV software change so much over time that I change my recommendations based on responsiveness and effectiveness of the software. So, my recommendations will change as the software does….
@Ramesh Kumar:
Ramesh what I am saying about Sandboxie if
Microsoft were to control it was that unfortunately
Microsoft haven’t a great reputation of being able to secure their products and sooner or later Sanndboxie might get cracked and Microsoft would then have to issue countless security patches just to keep up.
On point 2 Locutus has put it better than I can.
I always thought that No Script was an unnecessary browser crippler.
We all know that violent crimes take place, but does that mean we should all don bullet/stab proof vests every time we step out our front door just in case we get attacked?
I am amazed at the amount of praise No script gets by its users on the Mozilla site, they seem to think No Script is the best think since sliced bread….hmmm somebody needs to give them a good shaking, it’s not needed, and they obviously have never heard of Sandboxie before!
@KL
Well put KL, well put. I got it.
@Samuel
In “some” ways is the “frequent security patch thing” a downer; aka if on the one hand it “protects” (i.e. security patch) does it on the other hand “break an app as well” – if the app is baked into the OS?
Ramesh :)
@Ramesh Kumar: The key to remember is that it’s no different if the program is integrated in to the OS or not in that case really. An update is an update. Only big advantage would be that updates for it would be part of SPs.
Guday from New Zealand, an excellent site, and good instructive comments.
SERIOUS SYSTEM CLEANING FOR XP
I have found that no one anti-virus or anti-spyware is ” THE BEST “, but they all have different capabilities, and merits, so I scan with many of them, and get the best of all. After all it costs me little time, as I do my chores while the scan is proceeding. This policy has proved successful.
Main running security :- Comodo Internet Security that has real time, and registry monitoring, so you have to be savvy enough to answer awkward questions. Comodo BOClean,which is a behavioral analyzer, put simply. This keeps my system fairly clean, but every few months I do a “big ” scan, and the extras are :-
1 Norman Malware Cleaner….is brilliant
2 Mcafee Stinger
3 Sophos Anti-rootkit
4 Avast Virus Cleaner
5 AVG Virus CLeaner
6 Parvark
7 Vundofix
8 HiJack this
9 Alwil Virus and worm cleaner
10 Curit
11 Trojan Hunter
12 A Squared
13 Malwarebytes Rouge Remover
14 Trojan Remover
Warning : You need to disable some of 1 to 14 from running on start up with your start up manager. Also, you need to be very savvy, in dealing with the results, or you could easily wreck your system.
Regards Bill3.
My past experience with the free version of Alvira was rather strange. I think a kid in the neighborhood was hacking me for fun for a LONG time but the Alvira would start acting dotty, the fail to load, and then when it DID load, it would supposedly do a scan, report nothing detected, and yet the log file would indicate that actually no files were scanned at all (Files scanned “0″). weird. I tried Avast, and it would just keep crashing. I now use the latest AVG 9.0(It didn’t do well either in the past) but at least it now APPEARS to be doing what it’s supposed to do (although the last 3 months it has detected only a couple of threats.) I’m using Private Firewall 7.0 now, and I tried to tweak out the ftp PP2P, and all that networking stuff, but who knows if I did it right? lol.
When the hacking problem was at its worst, the only paid program that held out longest ( Norton’s, McAfee just died) was the PC-Cillin one, but it too gave out after a while.
the kid is really a little pain in the @ss genius
maybe I’ll try Avast again along with the Panda Cloud AV Maybe he hasn’t seen it yet to reverse engineer it…lol.
I REALLY hate knowing just enough to be dangerous to my computer’s health lol
@JustAnothernoobie – This is a useful & absolutely new insight about AV software you gave! Therefore I am quoting you. It only underscores the point that ironically common sense is often regretfully “uncommon” :D
“it would supposedly do a scan, report nothing detected, and yet the log file would indicate that actually no files were scanned at all (Files scanned “0?). weird”.
Yes indeed it is useful to at least see if a log file of an AV after scanning is empty or not. Meaning even if the scan detected no threat even then the scan report still has to list out all the files it has scanned. :)
There is no denying the fact that *everyone who has an AV software has to at least cursorily glance at its scan report*. When one is busy one can quickly save that individual scan report in order to cursorily glance at it later
Ramesh :)