Hi, what is better? Avast! Internet Security or Eset Smart Security 4?
thx for reply 
What answer do you expect to get on an avast! forum?
Long wayā¦
Check independent reviews and tests (like Virus Bulletin).
Use and get used with the program.
Set your priorities and must-have.
Dig into technical forums.
Short and happy way:
Be avast! 160+ happy users all around the world 
I like Avast and AVG IS
All I can tell you from my experience is I use Eset on-demand scanning once in a while. I would use it more but it is very slow. For example their default scan on my x64 computers takes 35 - 40 minutes which is maybe 4 times slower than avast! Quick Scan and about 75% slower than it takes avast! to scan my entire internal HDD.
Eset has found a couple of items that avast! has missed but I prefer to use Stinger over Eset even though Stinger is slower but it has been more effective in finding bad stuff especially in MSFT backup image files.
ESET has robots, that is the only advantage they have over Avast!
robots > pirates
So now Avast! is working on special pirate robots to counter this.
robots < pirate robots
So you will be sorry if you use ESET and the pirate robot version of Avast! debuts, as they will surely pillage and plunder the poor IRobot-style ESET robots. This is not a battle you want to be on the losing side of. Choose Avast! today.
LOL!
Iād rather pay for Norton IS or Norton 360 over ESET SS. However, since Avast is much lighter on system resource than Norton Iād rather pay for Avast IS instead.
This is Avast Forum, so most people here will answer Avast over anything.
I participate in a Russian independent tests, and i see that ESET has a higher detect! But we used only the LATEST viruses. Avast weakest of the most popular in the search for new types of viruses. And to have a rather long response to the virus sent (more then 24 hours). But it catches up after 24 hours.
But the rest of it better than others and very quick and beauty! 
I use the free Avast and test it, send viruses. I like its low load on the system!
If the detector will be increased in version 7 with preservation of other characteristics - I would definitely buy Avast IS!
Yes and no.
Yes, they always need to improve the detection of zero-day.
No, because ESET - and any other antivirus - has its own weakness as avast has a lot of unique detections (mostly on websites and scripts).
You compared the free version of Avast vs Eset?
Please compare prices on the paid versions and compare those instead, makes much more sense.
Avast āfreeā is a full AV solution that can compare to any other full AV, paid or not. As long as you compare the AV features, I canāt see where the problem is. Now coming here to ask if Eset is better than Avast or the contrary >>> LOL ;D
Full AV product, sure, that would mean NOD32, which is why I asked.
Comparing free up against ESET Smart Security would not be fair unless it is compared against Avast Internet Security.
Hope that was more clear.
Actually, I think ESET heuristics is better than avast. Based on AV comparatives. However, it seems that ESET is going down hill (based on what I read on Wilders).
Marcus said on WIlders that ESET have one of the fastest response time. Not sure how true is that.
No, i testing Avast and see the results of other users (others antiviruses)
Robots always have better heuristics, this should come as no surprise.
Robots also have very fast response time, pretty hard for humans to beat the whole āorganized central intelligenceā thing that they have going for them.
Just wait for the Pirate Robots, Iām telling you. The prototypes are already out there, Google pirate robots and you will see.
Avast!'s Version 7 Anti-Malware Pirate Robots, driven by the power of community, Czech programming, cheap rum, and a lust for booty and pillage.
I pity the competition.
Eset has native 64-bit builds for 64-bit Operating Systems
Avast still uses 32-bit processes in 64-bit OSes
wrong, this is just for UI and services, all Avast drivers, when installed on a 64 bit OS, are 64 bit drivers.
Drivers are 64-bit but most of the program is still 32-bit 
ā¦ which is perfectly fine.