Independent Tests ofAnti-Virus Software

Performance Test
Impact of Consumer Security Software
on System Performance
TEST PERIOD:APRIL 2023

LAST REVISION:

4TH MAY 2023

WWW.AV-COMPARATIVES.ORG

Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

Introduction
The Performance Test evaluates the impact of anti-virus software on system performance, as programs
running in background – such as real time protection antivirus software – use some percentage ofsystem resources. Taking these tests as reference, users can evaluate their anti-virus protection interms of system speed (system performance). For further details please refer to themethodology documents as well as the information provided on our website. We want to make clearthat the results in this report are intended only to give an indication of the impact on system
performance (mainly by the real-time/on-access components) of the consumer security products inthese specific tests. Users are encouraged to try out the software on their own PC’s and see how it
performs on their own systems.

Tested products
The following products for 64-bit systems were evaluated in this test:
Avast Free Antivirus 23.3

Kaspersky Standard 21.9

AVG Free Antivirus 23.3

McAfee Total Protection 26.6

Avira Prime 1.1

Microsoft Defender 4.18

Bitdefender Internet Security 26.0

Norton Antivirus Plus 22.23

ESET Internet Security 16.1

Panda Free Antivirus 22.0

F-Secure Internet Security 19.0

TotalAV Antivirus Pro 5.22

G Data Total Security 25.5

Total Defense Essential Antivirus 14.0

K7 Total Security 17.0

Trend Micro Internet Security 17.7

This test includes both “Antivirus” and “Internet Security” consumer products – both referred to assecurity products. We have tested the same products that are included in the protection tests of theConsumer Main Test Series. Please note that the results in this report apply only to the specific productversions listed above (i.e. to the exact version numbers and to 64-bit systems). Also, keep in mind
that different vendors offer different (and differing numbers of) features in their products.
The following activities/tests were performed under an up-to-date Windows 10 64-Bit system:• File copying• Archiving / unarchiving• Installing / uninstalling applications• Launching applications• Downloading files• Browsing Websites• PC Mark 10 Professional Testing Suite2

Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

Test methods
The tests were performed on a machine with an Intel Core i3 CPU, 4GB of RAM and SSD system drives.
We consider this machine configuration as “low-end”. The performance tests were done on a clean
Windows 10 64-Bit system (English) and then with the installed consumer security software (withdefault settings). The tests were done with an active Internet connection to allow for the real-world
impact of cloud services/features.
Care was taken to minimize other factors that could influence the measurements and/or comparabilityof the systems. Optimizing processes/fingerprinting used by the products were also considered – thismeans that the results represent the impact on a system which has already been operated by the user
for a while. The tests were repeated several times (with and without fingerprinting) in order to getmedian values and filter out measurement errors. After each run, the workstation was reverted to thepreviously created system image and rebooted six times. We simulated various file operations that acomputer user would execute: copying 1 different types of clean files from one place to another,archiving and unarchiving files, downloading files from the Internet and launching applications(opening documents). We believe that increasing the number of iterations increases our statisticalprecision. This is especially true for performance testing, as some noise is always present on realmachines. We perform each test multiple times and provide the median as result.
We also used a third-party, industry-recognized performance testing suite (PC Mark 10 Professional)
to measure the system impact during real-world product usage. We used the predefined PCMark 10
Extended test. Readers are invited to evaluate the various products themselves, to see what impact
they have on their systems (due to e.g. software conflicts and/or user preferences, as well as different
system configurations that may lead to varying results).
Security products need to load on systems at an early stage to provide security from the very beginning– this load has some impact on the time needed for a system to start up. Measuring boot times
accurately is challenging. The most significant issue is to define exactly when the system is fully
started, as many operating environments may continue to perform start-up activities for some timeafter the system appears responsive to the user. It is also important to consider when the protection
provided by the security solution being tested is fully active, as this could be a useful measure of bootcompletion as far as the security solution is concerned. Some security products load their services
very late at boot (or even minutes later). Users may notice that sometime after the system has loaded,
it will become very slow for a little while; thus, it initially looks as though the system has loaded very
quickly, but in fact the security product just loads its services belatedly, leaving the system more
vulnerable. As we find this misleading, we still do not publish boot times in our reports.
There are a number of factors 2 that can affect computer performance. For further details of these, andtips for boosting your PC’s speed, please see our blog 3.

We use several GB of data consisting of various file types and sizes (pictures, movies, audio files, MS Office
documents, PDF documents, applications/executables, archives, etc.).
2
https://www.av-comparatives.org/the-balance-between-performance-low-speed-impact-and-real-timedetection/3
https://www.av-comparatives.org/spotlight-on-security-antivirus-system-performance/
13

Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

Test cases
We strive to make our tests as meaningful as we can, and so continually improve our test
methodologies. Future tests will be further improved and adapted to cover real-life scenarios evenbetter.
File copying:
We copied a set of various common file types from one physical hard disk to another physical harddisk. Some anti-virus products might ignore some types of files by design/default (e.g. based on theirfile type), or use fingerprinting technologies, which may skip already scanned files in order to increase
the speed.
Archiving and unarchiving:
Archives are commonly used for file storage, and the impact of anti-virus software on the time taken
to create new archives or to unarchive files from existing archives may be of interest for most users.
We archived a set of different file types that are commonly found on home and office workstations.
Installing applications:
We installed several common applications with the silent install mode and measured how long it took.
We did not consider fingerprinting, because usually an application is installed only once.
Launching applications:
Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) and PDF documents are very common. We opened and thenlater closed various documents in Microsoft Office and in Adobe Acrobat Reader. The time taken for
the viewer or editor application to launch was measured. Although we list the results for the firstopening and the subsequent openings, we consider the subsequent openings more important, asnormally this operation is done several times by users, and optimization of the anti-virus products
take place, minimizing their impact on the systems.
Downloading files:
Common files are downloaded from a webserver on the Internet.
Browsing Websites:
Common websites are opened with Google Chrome. The time to completely load and display the website
was measured. We only measure the time to navigate to the website when an instance of the browser
is already started.

4Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

Test Results
These specific test results show the impact on system performance that a security product has,compared to the other tested security products. The reported data just gives an indication and is notnecessarily applicable in all circumstances, as too many factors can play an additional part. The testers
defined the categories Slow, Mediocre, Fast and Very Fast by consulting statistical methods and taking
into consideration what would be noticed from the user’s perspective, or compared to the impact of
the other security products. If some products are faster/slower than others in a single subtest, this isreflected in the results.
SlowMediocre

Fast

Very Fast

The mean value of theproducts in this clusterbuilds a clearly slower
fourth cluster in the given
subcategory

The mean value of theproducts in this clusterbuilds a third cluster in thegiven subcategory

The mean value of theproducts in this group ishigher than the averageof all scores in the given
subcategory

The mean value of theproducts in this group islower than the average of allscores in the given
subcategory

Overview of single AV-C performance scores
File copying
On firstrun

Onsubsequentruns

Archiving/unarchiving

Installing
applications

Launchingapplications
On firstrun

Onsubsequent
runs

Downloading
files

Avast
AVG
Avira
Bitdefender
ESET
F-Secure
G DataK7
Kaspersky
McAfeeMicrosoft
NortonPanda
TotalAV
Total Defense
Trend Micro

Key:
Slow

MediocreFast
5

Very fastBrowsing
Websites

Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

PC Mark Tests
In order to provide an industry-recognized performance test, we used the PC Mark 10 Professional
Edition 4 testing suite. Users using PC Mark 10 benchmark 5 should take care to minimize all external
factors that could affect the testing suite, and strictly follow at least the suggestions documented
inside the PC Mark manual, to get consistent and valid/useful results. Furthermore, the tests should
be repeated several times to verify them. For more information about the various consumer scenarios
tests included in PC Mark, please read the whitepaper on their website 6.
“No security software” is tested on a baseline 7 system without any security software installed, whichscores 100 points in the PC Mark 10 benchmark.

PC Mark
Score
Baseline
ESET
K7
Panda
NortonAvira
Bitdefender
McAfeeTotal Defense
Kaspersky
G DataAvast, AVG
F-SecureTotalAVMicrosoft
Trend Micro

100
98.4
98.3
98.2
98.1
97.9
97.8
97.7
97.6
97.5
97.4
97.3
97.2
97.1
96.8
95.2

For more information, see https://benchmarks.ul.com
PCMark® is a registered trademark of Futuremark Corporation / UL.
6
http://s3.amazonaws.com/download-aws.futuremark.com/PCMark_10_Technical_Guide.pdf (PDF)
7
Baseline system: Intel Core i3 machine with 4GB RAM and SSD drive.
456Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

Summarized results
Users should weight the various subtests according to their needs. We applied a scoring system tosum up the various results. Please note that for the File Copying and Launching Applications subtests,
we noted separately the results for the first run and for subsequent runs. For the AV-C score, we took
the rounded mean values of first and subsequent runs for File Copying, whilst for Launching
Applications we considered only the subsequent runs. “Very fast” gets 15 points, “fast” gets 10 points,“mediocre” gets 5 points and “slow” gets 0 points. This leads to the following results:
AV-C Score

PC Mark Score

TOTAL

Impact Score

90
90
90
90
90
88
85
85
85
83
80
78
75
65
63

98.3
98.2
97.9
97.8
97.5
98.4
98.1
97.7
97.3
97.1
97.4
95.2
97.2
97.6
96.8

188.3
188.2
187.9
187.8
187.5
186.4
183.1
182.7
182.3
180.1
177.4
173.2
172.2
162.6
159.8

1.7
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.5
3.6
6.9
7.3
7.7
9.9
12.6
16.8
17.8
27.4
30.2

K7
Panda
AviraBitdefenderKaspersky
ESET
NortonMcAfeeAvast, AVG
TotalAVG DataTrend Micro
F-Secure
Total Defense
Microsoft35

30,23027,425
20
16,8
15

12,6
9,9

10

6,9

5
1,7

1,8

2,1

2,2

2,5

7,3

3,6

0

7

7,7

7,7

17,8

Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

Award levels reached in this test
The following award levels are for the results reached in this performance test report. Please note thatthe performance test only tells you how much impact a security product may have on a systemcompared to other consumer security products (please read the note on previous pages); it does not
say anything about the effectiveness of the protection a product provides, so please have also a lookat the results of recent Real-World Protection and Malware Protection tests on our website.
AwardsProducts









K7
Panda
Avira
BitdefenderKaspersky
ESET
NortonMcAfee
Avast
AVG
TotalAV G Data
 Trend Micro F-Secure Total Defense Microsoft-8

Consumer Performance Test (low-end) – April 2023

www.av-comparatives.org

Copyright and Disclaimer
This publication is Copyright © 2023 by AV-Comparatives®. Any use of the results, etc. in whole or inpart, is ONLY permitted after the explicit written agreement of the management board of AVComparatives prior to any publication. AV-Comparatives and its testers cannot be held liable for any
damage or loss, which might occur as result of, or in connection with, the use of the information
provided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic data, but aliability for the correctness of the test results cannot be taken by any representative of AVComparatives. We do not give any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a
specific purpose of any of the information/content provided at any given time. No one else involvedin creating, producing or delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or consequential
damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related to, the use or inability to use, the services provided
by the website, test documents or any related data.
For more information about AV-Comparatives and the testing methodologies, please visit our website.
AV-Comparatives(May 2023)

9