Interestingly, Microsoft's own solution isn't the fastest:
This only makes perfect sense. Microsoft Defender is designed to work way in the background on purpose so it doesn't impact performance - especially when the user is using it. It is important to remember, like essentially all real-time antimalware solutions, everything is scanned as it comes into the computer. So there rarely ever is a need to run manual scans. And because Defender does not need speed for marketing fodder (Defender is already in there), they really done care about speed. I mean, what is more important? Speed or safety.
I generally take results from that site with a BIG grain of salt. The reasoning is simple, they exclude a number of established and well known packages from their testing runs. And yet include a few unknowns? GData, K7 and Total Defense? Really? Not very objective.
Once again, I agree with lex here. But not just that testing site - all testing sites. No matter their claims that they represent the "real world", those tests are synthetic.
Another point to remember is every antimalware maker, other than Microsoft, develops their security program to make them money. Either directly through ads or from tracking (spying?) on what you are doing, or by incentives (coercion?) to "encourage" you to buy their "premium/pro" version. That is NOT a criticism - just an observation of the facts.
So how do those programs get us consumers to use their software? By programing and coding their programs to score well on those "synthetic" tests so they can use those scores as good marketing fodder. I am not saying it is like the
Volkswagen scandal but... .
Also, what incentive do Norton, Kaspersky, McAfee, Avira, Avast, Bit Defender, et al have to rid the world of malware? None! Zilch! Nada! Why? Because if they actually worked together and blocked all malware
at the source BEFORE it got onto the Internet backbone, making malware useless to the bad guys, those security companies would go out of business.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has the true incentive to rid the world of malware, if for no other reasons than to stop the Microsoft haters from blaming Microsoft for the actions of the bad guys, and the failure of those 3rd party solutions from preventing infection.
For this reason (the desire to avoid bad publicity), Microsoft actually shares what they learn about the latest malware with all those other security program makers. Is that sharing for the greater good reciprocal? IDK. I bet not.
Anyway, to lex's claim, and to my point previously, Microsoft does NOT program Microsoft Defender to score well on those tests. Defender is already in there, after all. And Microsoft is not trying to entice users into buying a "premium" version of Defender. But they do code Defender to block
today's threats. And if tomorrow, the threats change, MS will push out a new update to address them and skip those that are no longer threats. It is this skipping malware that is no longer a threat that often cause Defender to get a lower score on those "synthetic" tests. I agree with MS on this. Why defend against a thread that is no longer a thread in the "real world"?
FTR, I like, use and recommend Microsoft Defender. And I advise against anyone
paying for a security solution - especially if it requires regular renewal fees. But frankly,
I don't care which security solution you use - just use one and keep it and Windows current and avoid being "click-happy" on unsolicited links. That is much more important than which solution you use! 
