Plus, Norton’s LifeLock identity theft protection provides identity recovery assistance, credit freezing, and more (it’s just too bad that LifeLock is only available for US users). I also love Norton’s dark web protection, which monitors dark web forums for leaked information. Norton has the best extra features I’ve seen in an antivirus. I like Norton’s device optimization tools and startup manager, which can keep your system free from junk files and speed up a computer that’s starting slowly. Norton covers up to 5 devices and includes: That said, while I like McAfee’s web protection, it found fewer phishing websites than Norton’s, so I can’t recommend it over Norton because of this. I found McAfee’s to be a lot more reliable than Norton’s, and I really like how it checks links in social media as well as search engines. I also like how, similar to Norton, McAfee includes color-coding to identify safe or dangerous websites before you click on them. Some antiviruses that I’ve tested (including ESET) make whitelisting websites very difficult. This is a super quick way to reduce false positives. If you choose to visit a site that McAfee has deemed unsafe, it automatically adds that site to your whitelist. It didn’t flag several phishing sites that Norton blocked, but it still blocked a lot more unsafe websites than Chrome or Firefox’s built-in protections did. McAfee’s web shield (WebAdvisor) is good, but it’s not as good as Norton’s. That said, I do think it’s better than not having any protection at all. However, I had mixed results with Safe Search, finding it often mislabeled dangerous websites as simply “untested”. Norton also includes a Safe Search web extension that uses color-coding to indicate whether a site is safe before you click on it. Safe Web is available for all major browsers, including Firefox, Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari. You can see why Norton flagged a website and read community reviews to learn more about the website from first-hand experiences. I particularly like how Safe Web provides a full breakdown on websites it blocks. It even detected phishing sites and exploit attacks that Chrome and Firefox missed. I tried to visit over 50 phishing sites, and Norton blocked every one of them. Norton has a powerful web security shield called Safe Web. Similarly, it blocked my ransomware simulator before it could encrypt any files, which was great. McAfee’s real-time scanner blocked 100% of malware files before I could download them onto my system. I could still browse the web and social media, but I experienced a lot of buffering and lag while streaming videos and playing games. What’s more, the full-disk scan really slowed down my computer. I was really impressed with the flawless detection rate - however, McAfee’s full scan took 1 hour to complete, which is 20 minutes more than Norton. I used the same archive to test McAfee as I used to test Norton, containing the 1,000s of malware samples of all kinds. Just like Norton, McAfee’s full system scan scored a 100% malware detection rate in my tests. McAfee’s antivirus scanner is just as good as Norton’s. It uses heuristic analysis and a huge malware database to protect your system from known and new malware. Many competitors fail to block ransomware at all. It even detected and blocked malware samples in encrypted folders - which is really cool.įinally, I tried running a ransomware simulator on my computer, and Norton blocked the simulator before it could even begin running. Norton’s real-time malware protection is just as impressive, immediately blocking any malware I tried downloading. I downloaded 1,000s of malware samples, including worms, trojans, keyloggers, rootkits, ransomware, cryptojackers, and more, and Norton was able to find all of them during a full scan, which took only 40 minutes to finish. Norton detected 100% of the infected files in my tests. It uses advanced machine learning, heuristic analysis, and a massive malware database to detect and prevent malware. Norton’s anti-malware engine is one of the best on the market.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |