Malwarebytes vs. Windows Defender

Should I use Malwarebytes or Windows Defender as my antimalware tool?

I understand the privacy implications of switching to Malwarebytes (free version), and I know that no antivirus tool is 100% perfect, the best protection against malware is common sense.

So, which one is more effective, or offers more protection features, Malwarebytes free version, or Windows Defender.


Windows Defender is perfectly integrated into Windows and way enough for basic protection.
The only real benefit of using Malwarebytes over Microsoft Defender is that you may get more specific targeted and more up-to-date protection (because Microsoft is not updating its database often enough) against Ransomware and Malware.
I personally would (if I had to use Windows again) just use the integrated Windows Defender, and as you already said “the best protection against malware is common sense”.


I’ve had a similar question.
I’ve been told that Windows Defender is great as an “always-on” anti-virus and that Malwarebytes (free version) is a good supplement to have as an “on-demand” tool that occasionally picks up things that Defender does not. Common advice received being, use Defender but run a Malwarebytes scan once a week or so manually.
I just read the top 4 “Malwarebytes vs. Defender” articles that came up on a Brave search and 2 of them recommended that approach, but did not give any information or research on why they are saying that’s an effective strategy. I’d like to see the results of actual testing.
Does anyone know if that’s just a waste of time, or does it have actual validity (running Malwarebytes as a back-up once a week)?

Maywarebytes will defend against mose malware. However, it is not much mose so, in my opinion, not worth the worse privacy.

This website compares many antiviruses, here is the page for Windows:

1 Like