# Comodo vs Avast!



## christopher2405 (May 2, 2007)

I currently have Avast! Anti-virus and Comodo Firewall on my computer, and am happy with both of them, however I was wondering if I would be better to just get rid of Avast and use the whole Comodo suite instead.

Is Comodo a decent Anti-Virus? The features look more or less the same as Avast, but I haven't heard much about it, so I just wanted to get some thoughts.

Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Zealex (Nov 30, 2008)

Lol, I googled this like 2 days ago, I heard that comodo antivirus isnt good, and you should best stick with avast and comodo firewall like me.


----------



## christopher2405 (May 2, 2007)

Thanks for the input. What exactly is wrong with Comodo Anti-Virus?


----------



## wolski888 (Sep 27, 2008)

Not good protection.
They focus more on the firewall I guess


----------



## christopher2405 (May 2, 2007)

OK, thanks. I'll just stick with Avast - if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I suppose.


----------



## Zealex (Nov 30, 2008)

im not 100% sure on this but i believe that comodo antivirus is new...so yeah it really hasn't been tested, and whats wrong with it is its not as a good protection. Their firewall is amazing thou.


----------



## wicket (Mar 10, 2009)

http://fileforum.betanews.com/review/1147148787/1/view
a user review forum where one guy says 

"found some viruses, which kasperky and avast didn't find!
the only thing is, that it asks me every program to allow. i don't need that in a antivirus.
it has a nice menu, it's easy, to become really quick a nice overview. "

and then another guy says....

However, the fatal deficiency of CAV isn't its engines, but is instead the fact that CAV has a grossly inadequate data base of malware signatures.

found this on another site 
We retested CAVS yesterday with:

200,000 Viruses
100,000 Trojans
50,000 Macros
400,000 Spywares
700,000 Adwares
20,000 Worms
70,000 Backdoors
10,000 Keyloggers

In total, CAVS came out at a 77% Detection Rate. They did best at Viruses, worst at Spywares.

When we tested the HIPS with 700,000 known exploits, only three worked, and two were detected by the heuristics, and the third was detected by the AV engine.

Over 400,000 exploits were used to test the firewall, and only one worked, but Comodo already knows about it and it will be fixed in the next version.

Until CAVS comes out as a final version and gets at least in the 95%+ range, I simply cannot recommend it. Try NOD32.

The tests referred to in my earlier post are those made by a professional independent testing organization (AV-Comparatives). Those tests are tests of each AV program's detection rates, & those detection rates are primarily based on an AV's blacklists/signature data bases. CAV failed those tests by a very wide margin.

CAV's data base proved to be sadly lacking, and there is no evidence that they have taken adequate steps to fix that problem.


----------



## christopher2405 (May 2, 2007)

Thanks, that site was really useful. Looks as though it's a fairly decent program but as (at the minute) it doesn't have the best detection rate, I'll stick with Avast for anti-virus and Comodo for firewall.

(I forgot to mention - Comodo firewall and Defense+ are two of the best pieces of security software I've ever came across).


----------



## kinbard (Jul 1, 2006)

I've tried both comodo products at the same time. It seems running both uses lots of resource. If you are going to use comodo firewall, use avg antivirus or avira. Both use fewer resources then avast.


----------

