I’m using Eset.

Have you considered Malwarebytes Premium, Debo? It's excellent.

https://www.malwarebytes.com/products/

I've used it for years and its never failed me. It runs quietly and thoroughly in the background without being obtrusive.

Just an FYI, Fudd...PC magazine test those programs who offer themselves for testing. Their published results aren't always reflective of the entire anti-virus community. Malwarebytes has never and I think, will never, be included in PC magazines rankings because they don't/won't volunteer for their laboratory. You need to consider this fact when you offer PC Magazines' test results as the solution to all inquiries. I'm very familiar with their publication and they're a very helpful informational source. But they're not the "end all" for the PC world.

What you describe is different from my understanding, which is - companies whose products rate poorly can ask to be excluded from the article.

You're familiar with PC Mag's publications? It has no publications, that ended almost a decade ago.

Neil Rubenking, author of the article and the person who pulls together independent tests from several different sources, is a respected authority in the field and has been at it for over 35 years. As he states in that piece I linked, he takes test results from independent labs very seriously.

Sorry but his word carries infinitely more weight to me (and to others) than that of an amateur who's not even in the industry and whose "advice" appears to be based on a subjective personal opinion. I'm an amateur too and that's why I link to the findings of someone considered to be an authority. If Rubenking agreed with your recommendation and the testing supported it, the article would say so. He doesn't seem to.

"You're familiar with PC Mag's publications? It has no publications, that ended almost a decade ago."

Yes...I used to subscribe to it...hard copy as well as on the net... and I'll bet I still have one or two of them around here somewhere. I didn't know they'd stopped publishing. That's a shame.They were a good publication and very helpful to novices.

"Neil Rubenking,..."

I'm not as impressed with him as you seem to be. Nor are some of my PC sources.

"...than that of an amateur who's not even in the industry and whose "advice" appears to be based on a subjective personal opinion."

Boy! You can be nasty when the world doesn't go your way. You have no idea what my level of computer intelligence is but you certainly display your own lack of PQ when you express your opinions. I'd work on that if I were you. It doesn't speak kindly for you.

Not going my way? I didn't realize there was a "way" in a discussion.

I believed your initial and subsequent responses to my comments have been, frankly, a bit silly and unfounded. I've said so.

I'm in Silicon Valley. Rubenking has been highly respected in the IT industry here and elsewhere for decades. Over the years he's written many books and has been a frequent speaker at technical conferences, yada yada yada.

PCMag and Rubenking aren't the only respected and objective sources around, fair enough, but that was the cite I used because of years of familiarity and trust. Who or what are your sources who don't think highly of him and his work? Why didn't the product you favor on a personal and apparently unsupported basis perform well in the test results? Does your expertise qualify you to challenge the findings of professional testing labs?

Additional comment-

The PCMag ratings get updated several times per year. I'm not sure if it's a regular schedule, every so many months, or what.

I remember that the article updating the test results earlier this year had a specific comment concerning Malwarebytes. It said something to the effect that -- while Malwarebytes is promoting itself as a product suitable for use as the sole security system for a PC like the other tested products, the test results suggests its performance falls very short of the mark attained by the others. It remains a good program for removing already established malware only.

Elmer, I've used both Nortons and McAfee and didn't care for either. Nortons takes up too much space and is intrusive in my opinion, and with McAfee I had too many issues with its inability when I used that program so I won't put that crap on my computer ever again.

Those are valid criticisms, debo, but are many years dated. I can only speak for one of the two that I use (and no need to mention which) and can say it's substantially changed and left those problems behind many, many years ago. It has an extremely light touch and you wouldn't know it's there other than the rare occasion when its real-time sentry function presents a popup to say it has blocked a problem in the act, before it could happen. Scans and updates are done only when the machine is inactive and postponed if use starts. There is no activity present or delays apparent at boot-up at all.

Webroot looks to be a terrific choice, tied for first with three others and all four are given an Editors Choice award. If you're happy to proceed with Webroot, you really can't do any better. If you want to know which of the two mentioned I use successfully, click on my name to go to the site's user page and send me a message.

I try to follow the advice I give, my own personal preference is of no value in the face of professional and objective ratings. Anyone with an interest should refer to those.

"I'm in Silicon Valley"

Good! You can, conveniently, visit Malwarebytes brand new office overlooking San Jose. Here's their September newsletter. You can read all about it before your visit.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/security-world/2017/09/deloitte-breached-by-hackers-for-months/

Huh?

Malwarebytes was never a substitute for a good anti virus, until version 3.0 when it was announced that it was also now a replacement anti virus program. Those that used it as such before this version put their computers at risk, because previous versions were to be used alongside a good anti virus.

I agree, cat. Keep in mind that comments on its test results, reported just a few months ago, suggested it's a still a poor performer compared to alternatives and shouldn't be considered on a par with any of the top products.

Yes, I did read that too.