Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

MetaDefender vs VirusTotal comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 14, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

MetaDefender
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
37th
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
38th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (37th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
VirusTotal
Ranking in Anti-Malware Tools
4th
Ranking in Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP)
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Anti-Malware Tools category, the mindshare of MetaDefender is 1.4%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of VirusTotal is 3.5%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Anti-Malware Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
VirusTotal3.5%
MetaDefender1.4%
Other95.1%
Anti-Malware Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.
Chinmay Banerjee - PeerSpot reviewer
Advisor Adtech/Martech/API product/project Engineering at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Helps businesses collect threat data while keeping privacy in mind and apable of detecting, blocking, and removing viruses and malware
There are two gray areas I still need to explore. I have worked with VirusTotal because it easily integrates with over seventy antivirus scanners and blacklisting services. In addition to those there is much scope to improve and add other services or integrations. The areas for improvement are that VirusTotal is not using much AI or generative AI models, while other competitors are starting to build them. For example, VirusTotal's work is based on the setup done by their engineers. If you want to do scanning or protection activities for a specific site, app, or device, that is the area VirusTotal is currently focused on. But other competitors are building AI models that can do things like left-side scanning and provide auto-generated reports. VirusTotal has predefined reports, but there is a lot of manual effort involved. Secondly, the API is very limited if I want to integrate VirusTotal with other applications. They need to build more connectors and provide support for Webhook connectors for the API. If you can't build your own connector, it's always good to have provisions for Webhook setup connectors across platforms. Thirdly, Kaspersky, a competitor of VirusTotal, is using a methodology called "gatekeeper." A gatekeeper is a security system that protects the inside of a building from outside threats. This is the model Kaspersky is currently using. You have your website set up, but the entire army of VirusTotal or Kaspersky is standing guard, protecting you from the first gate itself. Right now, VirusTotal detects threats from your domain, but it is always better to verify inside the domain and protect it from the first level when people or malware are entering. This first level of protection is lacking in VirusTotal right now. The security bridge and protection gate are missing.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"The product is easy to use with coding, such as Python or Java, via its API."
"The most valuable feature is the worldwide malware information database."
"It is quite simple for anyone if they just want to check some suspicious URLs."
"The feature I like the most is the ability to see the MD5 or SHA-256 signature of the file, and also the composition of the file according to its segments."
"The initial setup is easy."
"VirusTotal provides 95% to 98% accurate information."
"With VirusTotal, I can check for any hash, malware, file, domain, IP URL, or malicious URL, and Kaspersky stays clean."
"It can scan the dark web and find if an email ID has been compromised. This is another area that we have not explored yet."
 

Cons

"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"They can improve the telemetry. Whenever we handle a sample, they cannot provide any information about a victim."
"VirusTotal has predefined reports, but there is a lot of manual effort involved."
"There should be room for improvement, particularly in the API side of things."
"VirusTotal needs better advertisement and promotion, especially in the Middle East, since it is not yet widely recognized or popular in that region."
"They can improve the telemetry. Whenever we handle a sample, they cannot provide any information about a victim."
"VirusTotal has different versions, and sometimes the parameters of the API are not very clear."
"VirusTotal is hard to understand because you need to know Google Docs to create queries, and it doesn't have documentation for that."
"I would like to see an improved user interface and some automation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
"VirusTotal is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is very economical."
"We are using VirusTotal with free licenses, managing the license limits across three or four accounts, thus incurring no costs."
"The pricing is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Anti-Malware Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for VirusTotal?
I do not know about the pricing or licensing as our organization services VirusTotal for our clients.
What needs improvement with VirusTotal?
I would like to see improvements in the score consistency and accuracy. VirusTotal should add more details like those from competitors such as URL Void or Symantec URL Checker, which show the categ...
What is your primary use case for VirusTotal?
As I work in an incident response role, my daily task is to mitigate the security alert and perform the analysis part. When any alerts come, I check the IPs from where they originate and the locati...
 

Also Known As

OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
No data available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Anti-Malware Tools. Updated: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.