Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Different is a question and answer site for power users of Apple hardware and software. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is not a "I use OSX, do I need Anti-Virus?" question.
I am looking at comparison and user opinion of existing AV products.
I know I can avoid most (if not all) threats by being careful on the sites I visit, and the emails I download. But I need an anti-virus, for a variety of reasons - mostly to prevent my Mac as a carrier for viruses. (Many friends' USB drives turn out to be infected).

I was looking for the "Best" of the anti virus software out there.

I am looking prominently at anti-virus. "Internet Security" and the like are not important, and would try to avoid them if it would save money or not make my mac slower.

By "Best" I mean the best combination of detect-rate (or whatever that is called) and performance. I don't intend to run it always in the background. Maybe I would do a onetime scan of my system and hard drives, and then it would be mostly on a need basis, especially on USB drives/portable hard disks of friends.
So primary objective: High Detect rate

I have used Norton Antivirus for Mac and Virus Barrier (got this with one of those software bundles sometime before, not the latest version) and had problems with both. Both sometimes hog my CPU, and somehow "lock" my USB drives preventing me from Ejecting it (I had to force eject them or just pull them off from the port) (thought off late Norton seemed a little better)

Ok, thats a long one. But my question is simple: What anti-virus do you recommend for the Mac?

Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
I dont think it is a duplicate. I was looking at comparison of available products. The other question just lists them. Can someone explain? (Editing this question) –  Nivas Nov 28 '10 at 16:48
    
OK, since the other question wasn't a comparison, I'm going to reopen –  Kyle Cronin Nov 29 '10 at 17:14
    

4 Answers 4

ClamXav

It is free, open source, and low resource consumption.

A command line version is also available in brew, fink, and macports (less ugly).

share|improve this answer
1  
But boy is it ugly! –  glenstorey Dec 10 '10 at 9:08
1  
You're not supposed to need to look at it. It works well. –  gWaldo Jan 21 '11 at 22:03
    
+1 ClamXav. Not only is it low in resource consumption, but it doesn't hook into the bowels of your system like Norton and VirusBarrier will do. I've used all three, and both Norton and VirusBarrier not only slowed down my Mac but also cause kernel panics (equivalents to Windows' blue screen of death). (I would have +1'd your response and added this as a comment, @mankoff, but I have a brand new account with no points, so I'm not allowed to +1 or make comments. :/) –  Merchako Jan 24 '11 at 8:43

Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac Home Edition

share|improve this answer
    
I've never used Sophos for Mac, but I've seen Sophos do nasty and stupid things to Windows Servers, where arguably much more engineering energy is spent. I wouldn't... –  gWaldo Jan 21 '11 at 22:02
    
Thanks for your answer, Cavin! Can you please add more information? How does Sophos answer the OP's question? Don't just give a one-line answer; invest some time into the site and explain why this software is the right thing for the OP. –  daviesgeek Aug 18 '12 at 6:17

ClamXav is hard-written to never scan some files such as mp3. This made it entirely useless for me, as I was scanning music downloads. I found (but do not currently use) Panda to be the best, on Mac and Windows. It's effective, and in tests is one of the least-bogging-down. Betas are often free, and cross platform.

share|improve this answer
1  
As a casual reader, it would have been great for the down-voter to explain himself. Now I don't know if there's supposed to be something wrong with what he said about Clam or Panda. –  Sparky Nov 14 '11 at 22:41

I've personally used Sophos (Standalone version) and found that it causes high-memory utilization and some other file-system issues. (Updates on this one will bring your internet speeds to minimum).

I find avast! much better. It's free and covers most basic of the environments. The only caveat is the the first scan takes longer (~55 min for me).

I've also tried Avira, and I rather liked it. I've been using this for some time now and I gotta say it's very fast and easy to use.

Check this study by http://www.av-comparatives.org/ for comparison between different programs. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/mac_review_2013_en.pdf (Published last year)

Almost forgot about the Bitdefender. It is one of the best rated AV tools.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.