Avast vs Malwarebytes

Avast vs. Malwarebytes

Avira and AVG have both spent decades protecting Windows users, but they approach antivirus software from different angles. Avira prioritizes lightweight performance, a clean interface, and strong malware protection without overloading users with features. AVG takes the opposite approach, building their antivirus into a broader security suite packed with security and privacy tools. Both perform well in independent testing, but they cater to slightly different priorities.

Here's how the two compare across the areas that matter most.

Range of services and platform focus

Avast packs their Premium Security tier with real-time protection, ransomware shielding, phishing and web filtering, a personal firewall, behavioral detection, and webcam protection. The firewall stands out here, giving users network-level monitoring that most lightweight antivirus tools skip entirely. Scheduled scans and removable device scanning round out a suite built to run largely unattended once configured.

Malwarebytes covers less ground but does it with focus. Real-time protection extends to malware, PUPs, ransomware, malicious websites, and exploit attempts against vulnerable software, though there's no built-in firewall or parental controls, leaving network protection to Windows itself. Quarantine and scheduled scanning are present in both products, but Avast offers deeper customization of what gets scanned and when.

Ease of use and system performance

Avast's dashboard organizes protection, privacy, and performance settings into distinct sections, giving users plenty of room to dig into firewall rules and scan sensitivity. That depth brings some clutter, and they have a habit of promoting their other products even in paid tiers.

Malwarebytes strips the interface down to the essentials, scanning quickly and running quietly with little need for manual intervention. Independent performance testing shows both products handle modern hardware well, with Malwarebytes' lighter design generally translating to a snappier feel on older machines, while Avast holds their own without significantly weighing systems down.

Security strength and innovation

Independent labs give Avast the edge on raw accuracy. In AV-Comparatives' March 2026 Malware Protection Test, Avast recorded 96.3% offline detection and 98.7% online detection, with an online protection rate of 99.97% and 9 false alarms, a strong result backed by high marks in phishing testing as well.

Malwarebytes trails slightly on detection but still performs well. AV-Comparatives credited them with blocking 100% of 200 real-world test cases in February and March 2026, alongside 20 false positives, and malware protection rates of 92.4% offline and 98.3% online, with 23 false positives in that round. Their AV-TEST results have been solid too, with Malwarebytes Premium 5.5 scoring 17.5 out of 18 points in the latest evaluation. The tradeoff for Malwarebytes' strong catch rate is a higher false-positive count than Avast posts in the same tests.

Pricing and value

Avast's free tier already covers real-time malware and phishing protection, and their paid Premium Security plan starts at $31.20 for the first year and covers up to 10 devices, adding the firewall and ransomware shielding on top. Avast Ultimate goes further, bundling Premium Security with SecureLine VPN, AntiTrack, and Cleanup Premium for users who want privacy and cleanup tools included. Renewal prices climb noticeably after the first year.

Malwarebytes' free version is more limited, offering on-demand scanning only. Their Standard plan, the closest match to Avast's Premium Security, starts at $44.99 per year for one device, making it pricier at the entry level, though it comes with a 60-day money-back guarantee, twice as long as Avast's.

Conclusion

Avast suits users who want one suite covering malware, ransomware, phishing, and network security at a lower starting price, with a busier interface as the tradeoff. Malwarebytes suits users who want a lighter, simpler antivirus and don't mind relying on Windows for firewall coverage, at a higher entry price and a few more false alarms along the way. Both hold up well in independent testing, so the better fit comes down to whether you want everything in one place or a focused tool you can build around.