Surely Microsoft Security Essentials isn't THAT good?

[n01clueless]

Which? magazine (UK), in its latest anti virus group test, has MSE way out in front, beating not just the other free programs tested, but all the paid ones too. Just as puzzling, Avast free and paid come virtually last. They're not very specific about their testing procedure, but it would seem to contradict many recent tests which show MSE dong poorly and Avast doing very well.

[potjevleesch]

have a look here http://www.av-test.org/en/home/

[spywar]

You cannot compare MSE to Avast ...

MSE : Signature based. What happens to malwares that MSE does not detect ? They just go throught ... BTW, MSE is really good for someone with a normal usage of his PC it is light and efficient on widespreads threats (this is definitely true).

Avast! : Signature based, streaming updates, Cloud file reputation, Autosandboxing of suspicious files, more options etc etc ... for free!
So basically, a malware not detected by signature will be detected by Evo or FileRep or autosandboxed ... More prevention oriented.

IMO, both products should be considered as well you can install MSE and forget it run a MBAM scan/week ...

spywar

[n01clueless]

have a look here http://www.av-test.org/en/home/

Exactly, MSE failing to get certification again. It's also failed a number of other tests recently.. I really don't understand Which? magazine's results. It has a very good reputation for being independent -  I guess the testing procedure wasn't up to much.