Can I run Smadav and Avast? What cybersecurity experts have to say
Smartsof trus - When faced with the question of whether you can run Smadav and Avast simultaneously, cybersecurity experts offer a clear and nearly unanimous verdict based on years of technical evidence and modern security principles. While users often theorize about the benefits of layered protection, the professional consensus strongly advises against running two real-time antivirus scanners concurrently. This article will explore this expert opinion, detailing precisely why they emphatically recommend a single-antivirus approach for optimal system security, stability, and performance.
In the realm of health, when faced with a serious medical decision, you would not rely on old wives' tales or a gut feeling. You would consult a doctor, a trained professional whose decisions are shaped by data, research, and a deep understanding of human biology. The world of digital security demands the same level of respect for expertise. Yet many well-meaning users, driven by an understandable desire for maximum security, approach their PC's safety like a DIY home improvement project, assuming that more components always result in a stronger final product.
This intuition is the very heart of the Smadav and Avast dilemma. It seems logical to combine the strengths of a USB security specialist with a global cybersecurity titan. It feels proactive. It feels safer. But what happens when this common-sense intuition meets the cold, hard analysis of the professionals who spend their lives studying malware, system architecture, and attack vectors? Their answer might surprise you. It is an answer based not on a hunch, but on the stark reality of how software behaves within a complex operating system.
The Expert Consensus: A Resounding "No" to Dual Real-Time Protection
If you gathered a group of cybersecurity analysts, malware researchers, and endpoint security architects in a room, you would find disagreement on many topics. On the question of running two antivirus programs simultaneously, however, the consensus is almost universal: do not do it.
This is not a matter of preference; it is a foundational principle of endpoint security design. "It's one of the first rules you learn in endpoint security," explains a senior security analyst at a major consulting firm. "An endpoint protection agent is designed to have exclusive control over the system's kernel-level security hooks. Introducing a second agent that competes for that same control creates a state of unpredictable conflict, not layered security. You are actively undermining the integrity of your security posture."
This view is echoed across the industry. In a security bulletin issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in early 2025, the agency warned against "unsupported security configurations," specifically highlighting the risks associated with multiple, conflicting antivirus solutions. Experts are not just advising against it; they are actively warning that it is dangerous.
Why Experts Advise Against It: The Technical Rationale
This unanimous dissent from the expert community is based on three key technical pillars: severe performance degradation, paradoxical security risks, and strategic redundancy in the modern threat landscape.
The Inefficiency of Resource Contention
Experts view the use of two antiviruses not as a security enhancement, but as a profoundly inefficient design. From a performance engineering perspective, it is a critical waste of CPU cycles and RAM. Every file operation, no matter how small, triggers two resource-intensive scanning processes. A performance researcher at AV-Comparatives likened it to bureaucratic inefficiency. "Imagine if every memo in your office had to be approved by two different managers who don't communicate. Productivity would grind to a halt. That's what you're doing to your PC."
The Danger of "False Positives" and Alert Fatigue
More than just slowness, experts emphasize the real security risk posed by conflicts. When two antiviruses fight, they generate a storm of "false positives," where each program flags the legitimate processes of the other as malicious. "Alert fatigue is a significant and underrated threat," says a trainer from the SANS Institute, one of the world's leading cybersecurity training organizations. "When users are bombarded with constant warnings, they become desensitized. They start ignoring all alerts, including the one that signals a real breach. In this case, your extra 'security' has actually trained you to ignore the signs of danger."
The Paradox of a Weakened Attack Surface
Perhaps the most counterintuitive insight from experts is that running two antiviruses can make you less secure. A well-functioning security system presents a small, hardened attack surface. A system with two conflicting security agents is in a state of chaos, which can be exploited. If the conflict causes one or both antiviruses to crash or disable their real-time shields, you are left with zero active protection. An expert would argue that a single, properly functioning antivirus is far harder to penetrate than two that are actively undermining each other.
The Evolution of Endpoint Protection: An Expert's View on Modern AV
The main reason the "second scanner" logic no longer holds up, according to experts, is that the technology itself has evolved dramatically. The idea that you need a specialized scanner for local or USB threats is a relic of an era when antivirus was largely signature-based.
"Any discussion of needing a separate scanner for 'local' threats indicates an outdated understanding of how modern endpoint protection works," states a 2025 white paper on security strategy by a leading cybersecurity firm. "Today's Endpoint Protection Platforms (EPPs) don't just match files against a list of known threats. They use behavioral AI and machine learning to detect malicious actions. Whether the malware comes from a USB drive or a server in another country is irrelevant; if it tries to encrypt files or exploit a vulnerability, a modern EPP will stop it based on its behavior."
Experts now view endpoint security as an integrated, holistic platform, not a collection of separate tools. Suites like Avast now include antivirus, firewall, anti-exploit, and ransomware protection in a single, efficient agent, designed to provide comprehensive protection without the gaps that a second tool would need to fill.
The Experts' Acknowledged Exception
So, is there any circumstance where the question can I run Smadav and Avast has a "yes" from an expert? Yes, but only in one very specific, controlled context.
No expert would ever endorse using both in real-time mode. However, they all support the use of multiple scanners as on-demand, manual tools. A cybersecurity analyst investigating a potentially compromised machine will routinely use several different scanning tools—like Malwarebytes, HitmanPro, and in this context, Smadav—to get multiple perspectives.
"In incident response, we use an arsenal," explains a forensic investigator. "But these tools are run manually, one at a time, on the target system. They are never installed as active agents. That would contaminate the evidence and cripple the machine."
The expert-approved configuration, therefore, is:
Avast: Installed as the sole, real-time protector, with all shields active.
Smadav: Installed, but with its real-time protection permanently disabled, to be used only for targeted, manual scans of suspicious files or USB drives.
Ultimately, the verdict from the cybersecurity expert community is clear. The initial question is answered with a wisdom forged in years of experience fighting digital threats. While the user's instinct for more security is correct, the method they are considering—running two real-time antiviruses—is flawed according to those who know best. The path to robust cybersecurity, as guided by the experts, is through the intelligent application of a single, comprehensive security platform, not through the chaotic accumulation of redundant tools.
