Negatives of using bitdefender antivirus free edition

#NEGATIVES OF USING BITDEFENDER ANTIVIRUS FREE EDITION WINDOWS 10#
#NEGATIVES OF USING BITDEFENDER ANTIVIRUS FREE EDITION SERIES#

However, we were able to start a live chat with a tech-support agent with no problem from the Bitdefender support website. Instead, there are lots of online help available for common problems along with videos and reports of recent hacks. There's no guaranteed telephone or chat tech support with Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition. The 2.1% background slowdown was the second best of the free antivirus programs, just behind Kaspersky Security Cloud Free, which actually sped up the system by 0.9% after its installation.

The time rose to 14.0 seconds after Bitdefender Antivirus Free was loaded, but before it started scanning. The CPU took an average of 13.7 seconds to complete the test.

#NEGATIVES OF USING BITDEFENDER ANTIVIRUS FREE EDITION WINDOWS 10#

It used Windows 10 with the latest updates.Д«efore we installed Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition, we ran the benchmark to provide a baseline for comparison. We used an Asus X555LA notebook with a 2-GHz Core i3-5005U processor, 6GB of RAM and 59.5GB of files on a 500GB hard drive. Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition: Performance and system impactД«itdefender Antivirus Free had a moderate impact on system performance as measured by our custom benchmark test, which clocks how long a CPU takes to match 20,000 names and addresses in an Excel spreadsheet. That's all that comes with the software.Д«itdefender's free Traffic Light browser add-ons for Chrome, Firefox and Safari need to be downloaded separately, as does the Home Scanner tool that looks for insecure devices on a home network. Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition: Security and privacy featuresД«itdefender Antivirus Free Edition's minimalist features range from anti-phishing defenses to warnings of known malicious websites. We normally use test results from Britain's SE Labs, but Bitdefender stopped being tested in mid-2018 after it got mediocre scores for neutralizing some malware rather than completely removing it. In February-March 2020, they each scored 99.7% with five false positives, the same as Windows Defender. Microsoft told us that the high false-positive counts were a result of its Smart Screen feature flagging anything unknown as potential malware, and AV-Comparatives chalking up a false positive every time that happened.ДЇor its February-March 2020 tests, AV-Comparatives reportedly turned Smart Screen off, and Defender came away with only five false positives and an overall detection store of 99.7%.ДЄvast and AVG had the opposite problem: only five false positives each but underwhelming 99.2% average detection rates in the February-May round, and 99.3% with eight false positives each in July-October. In Febuary-March 2020, the results swung back Kaspersky's way it got a perfect 100% while Bitdefender got only 99.5%, but neither had any false positives.ДЄmong the other three brands, Microsoft's malware engine may have been a bit too aggressive, as its Windows Defender had a decent 99.6% detection rate but a whopping 74 false positives in the earlier round, and 99.3% in the second round with 58 false positives.

The positions were reversed in the July-October 2019 round, in which Bitdefender got 99.7% and Kaspersky 99.1%, although the false-positive scores remained the same. Kaspersky was indeed perfect, with a 100% detection average and zero false positives.

#NEGATIVES OF USING BITDEFENDER ANTIVIRUS FREE EDITION SERIES#

In Austrian lab AV-Comparatives' February-May 2019 series of tests, Bitdefender's defenses were nearly perfect, stopping an average of 99.9% of online malware and racking up just two false positives. Microsoft had 39 and Avast and AVG 26 each, while Kaspersky had only three, indicating a well-tuned detection engine. However, Bitdefender registered the most false positives - 47 - among all five malware engines over those two-plus years.

They missed some zero-day malware 15 times since January 2017, and some widespread malware 10 times. Windows Defender was in the middle of the pack, consistently detecting either 100% or 99.9% of known malware, but missing the mark with zero-day malware seven times over 28 months.Д«ringing up the rear were Avast and AVG, which use the same malware engine. Only Kaspersky did better, detecting both types of malware all the time until it finally stumbled in April 2020 with a 99.0% detection rate of zero-day malware. Over all 24 of German lab AV-Test's monthly evaluations in 20, and in the first four tests of 2020, Bitdefender detected 100% of known 'widespread' malware in every time, but missed some previously unseen 'zero-day' malware three times. In recent evaluations conducted by independent malware-testing labs, Bitdefender did very well, although it showed a tendency to make false warnings. (Image credit: Tom's Guide) Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition: Antivirus performance

Negatives of using bitdefender antivirus free edition