BitDefender vs Kaspersky vs ESET

Do you have a question?

Eset must be the best you are using it.

Some things related to what you asked. In the end though , it comes down to personal preferences.

HTG Explains: Why You Don’t Need a Full Internet Security Suite

Here is one magazine's opinion. Security software showdown! 9 antivirus suites empirically tested | PCWorld

I agree with Laybacks comments as in, you pay your money and take your choice. There appears to be very little difference in the performance of the top 5 or so suits and it is very much down to personal choice.

I am currently using Bitdefender 2013, which I am very happy with and, in the past have used Kaspersky with equally pleasing results. I have also used Norton's which, although effective, was buggy as hell and a resource hog (this is a few years back and may well have changed).

From personal experiences (bad) I wont touch McAfee or Zone Alarm (which I used until very recently but got fed up with the terrible bugginess) but others may really like using them.

I'm of the opinion that the way one uses ones PC is nearly as important as using a decent AV/Malware set up. If you are the kind of user who repeatedly visits/uses "well known" sites/software then, irrespective of online protection, you are going to get your fingers burnt eventually.

Andy

Everyone makes their own choices on software and malware protection.

I've used Paid suites: Norton (until it became too big, too hungry, too agressive), Kaspersky, and
Free "suites": AVG, Avast (current). All worked well.

Take a look at AV-TEST - The Independent IT-Security Institute: Home for more testing results.
Use the column headings to sort on protection, repair, and usability (I focus on protection & repair).