Bitdefender vs Norton - distinction without a difference?

I've been relying on Microsoft Security (Windows Defender) for years on my Toshiba laptop, Windows 10 Pro, and have never gotten an infection. Every so often, I also scan my computer with Malwarebytes free. I don't see a need for any 3rd party antivirus, although I'm sure several of the paid programs like Kaspersky, Norton, Bitdefender, etc. do a good job for those who feel comfortable spending the money. Searching online, I've found many positive reviews about WD. The various testing companies are giving excellent reviews on the latest Defender. This is not the original WD, which had been superseded a year or so ago, and is standard on all newer W10 systems.

I relied on windows Defender for years too, but was concerned by all the horror stories and claims of magical protection. Used Bitdefender last year. It was fine but HOW do you prove a negative... If you DON'T get hit by malware, ransomware, aliens stealing stuff, how do you know it did all the magical things claimed... Just because BD SAYS it stopped this and that heinous attack, doesn't mean there was a real threat that WD wouldn't have caught.

I asked some start-up questions in the Bitdefender forum because it does bad things when you try to use tools like SafePay with Dashlane. I'm not about to give all the passwords and secure notes to Bitdefender, so it's a problem. Between that and the extremely limited VPN, I'm seriously thinking the same thing I thought about Norton 360 - WHAT am I giving these people money FOR, that's of significant value to me?

I suspect I'll dump Bitdefender and go back to the new version of Windows Defender. And unfortunately, the only way I'll know if it was a BAD decision is if I get an infection that causes massive damage.

GracieAllen said:

HOW do you prove a negative... If you DON'T get hit by malware, ransomware, aliens stealing stuff, how do you know it did all the magical things claimed... Just because BD SAYS it stopped this and that heinous attack, doesn't mean there was a real threat that WD wouldn't have caught.

Bingo......you just won a cigar AND a teddy bear.

The cigar doesn't do much for me, but I'd be happy to have the teddy bear... And maybe a nice bowl of ice cream?

And unfortunately, the only way I'll know if it was a BAD decision is if I get an infection that causes massive damage.

...AND a whole bunch of people who used something else were okay because that something else caught the problem.

GracieAllen said:

I relied on windows Defender for years too, but was concerned by all the horror stories and claims of magical protection. Used Bitdefender last year. It was fine but HOW do you prove a negative... If you DON'T get hit by malware, ransomware, aliens stealing stuff, how do you know it did all the magical things claimed... Just because BD SAYS it stopped this and that heinous attack, doesn't mean there was a real threat that WD wouldn't have caught.

I asked some start-up questions in the Bitdefender forum because it does bad things when you try to use tools like SafePay with Dashlane. I'm not about to give all the passwords and secure notes to Bitdefender, so it's a problem. Between that and the extremely limited VPN, I'm seriously thinking the same thing I thought about Norton 360 - WHAT am I giving these people money FOR, that's of significant value to me?

I suspect I'll dump Bitdefender and go back to the new version of Windows Defender. And unfortunately, the only way I'll know if it was a BAD decision is if I get an infection that causes massive damage.

Take the cost of a year of anti-virus software and buy a USB hard drive. Use Macrium Reflect Free to keep 2 or 3 backup images of your system on the external USB drive. This protects you against not only viruses/ransomware, but also against Windows crashes because of a drive failure or a bad update.

mjohnsonn2 appears to be stating, or at least strongly inferring, that there IS a substantive difference between the protection provided by Windows Defender and these third-party products. Is this actually the case? Is there definitive proof that Norton 360 or Bitdefender or whatever will stop destructive malware that windows Defender will allow to attack and decimate a computer?

I didn't see it in the tests to which I was pointed, but if mjohnsonn2 is correct, there must be documented tests that show a significant difference between the built-in anti-malware protection and these third-party products. Is there a link to reliable tests that demonstrate this?