Thanks for that. I also have an IT background and currently work as a senior IT consultant for a company providing IT to 18,000 users. I work with the security team and we provide anti virus to all of our clients and I am fully aware of the issues that having sub-optimal security can cause. I tend not to get my information from the consumer magazine Which?. Not everything you said was wrong but let me point out what was; * "If a solution doesn’t have anti-ransomware solution then clearly that's a risk" - Kaspersky does have an Anti Ransomware solution. * "If a solution does not have a password manager thats fact not bullshit" - Kaspersky does have a password manager. * "AVG and Avast free software actually has better protection than Kaspersky" - Maybe Which? says it does (I can't read the article as I don't subscribe' but many others say they don't. In fact they score quite poorly for malware. Also the paid for Kaspersky (don't forget they do also have a free one) provides so much additional protection I find this statement a bit lacking. * "BitDefender and ESET offer the best protection and services" according to you and Which?. In fact looking at all the other information on the net you can see that different companies rate them differently and sometimes BitDefender comes ahead of Kasepersky and sometimes the other way (I am yet to see ESET beat Kaspersky). However from what I can see Kaspersky is always in the top 5 and is often awarded the best. My general problem with your comment is that Kaseprsky will not provide decent security "I know consequences that come from having sub-optimal Internet Security solutions". While Kaspesky may not win in one or two categories, all security experts seem to agree that it is an excellent product and will provide very good protection. I am certainly not saying that the others you have mentioned will not be good enough (I swap between them depending on reviews and price) but 10 devices for £16.99 a year for a top security product seems like a very good deal to me. So my final comment as someone working in IT security is that any Anti-Virus is better than nothing. Free ones are OK but will miss some of the features of paid versions. As for paying for one if you can find a deal with any of the top companies close to this price then go for it. If not then for the vast majority of people this will be brilliant and provide what you need.
I agree. Quite a lot of it’s suspect these days because they don’t have the resources to do proper testing of anything costing much more than a pack of detergent so they rely heavily on member feedback on anything more expensive. IT and cars are completely out of their league.
This is precisely why I stopped subscribing to Which? Some of their stuff is well thought out and properly researched, other stuff less so. Their reports on both IT and also cars seem to be rather suspect.
As a Which? member I do take some account of their reports and views, provided they’re properly evidenced. Frequently though they’re not, and their knowledge of IT is seriously limited. I’d pay little attention to anything they say about virus checkers.
Which? consumer magazine recently did extensive tests on virtually every solution and their conclusions are as per my message. Its not bullshit, if a solution doesn’t have anti-ransomware solution then clearly thats a risk. Similarly if a solution does not have a password manager thats fact not bullshit. On test, BitDefender and ESET got high results for every security category and are both Which? best buys. I am not trying to convince anyone to buy anything but as I have an IT background I know consequences that come from having sub-optimal Internet Security solutions.