Microsoft's OneCare pioneered the concept of enhancing a security suite with backup and system tuneup components. OneCare is long gone, but its memory lives on in mega-suite products like Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Complete (2014), which includes all the features of Webroot's entry-level suite plus a system optimizer and an impressive backup and sync feature.

Just looking at the product's main window, you really can't tell it apart from the entry-level suite or from Webroot's antivirus product. The main difference is that Backup & Sync is actually available in the accordion-style panel at right. Open the Utilities panel below it for access to the System Optimizer.

The product costs $79.99 per year direct for five licenses, but you don't have to use all five licenses on PCs. You can also use them to install protection on your Mac or Android devices. New in this edition, the Mac version has just about everything the PC version does. The program's designers have also brought the user interfaces for the Mac and PC editions into line and, as much as possible, the Android edition too.

View All 16 Photos in Gallery

Oddball Antivirus
I tested the heck out of Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2014)£22.49 at Webroot UK and wrote an extensive review. You'll want to read that for full details about the antivirus; I'll summarize here.

While Webroot does maintain an online database of signatures for common viruses and other threats, its main thrust involves detecting malware based on program traits and behavior. A program doesn't have any behaviors until it actually has a chance to run, so this system is bound to let some malicious programs launch and start functioning. An unknown program is presumed innocent until its behavior reveals otherwise.

Webroot journals all activity by unknowns, so if at some point its analysis pinpoints the process as malicious, it can roll back everything that the process did. This delayed-reaction style is decidedly incompatible with many of the tests performed by third-party labs. The chart below summarizes recent lab tests, most of which don't include Webroot. For more about the labs, please read see How We Interpret Antivirus Lab Tests.

Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Complete (2014) lab tests chart

In my own hands-on testing I found that Webroot installed in a flash, even on malware-infested systems. A quick remote-control session using a bootable Webroot utility cleared up ransomware that made installation tough on one system. Two systems needed a couple hours of remote-control tech support help to fully complete the cleanup process, but in the end they did succeed.

Webroot's detection rate of 89 percent and overall malware cleanup score of 6.6 points are both tops among products tested using this same malware collection. F-Secure Internet Security 2014's 86 percent was the next-best detection rate. F-Secure and Bitdefender Total Security (2014)£24.99 at Bitdefender UK also scored 6.6 points. The chart below summarizes results; for an explanation of what goes into that chart, see How We Test Malware Removal.

Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Complete (2014) malware removal chart

As noted, Webroot won't necessarily detect an unknown malicious program until it actually does something bad, like trying to upload your personal data. Even so, it did a decent job in my malware blocking test. Webroot detected 91 percent of the samples and scored 8.8 points, putting it about in the middle of current products. Norton 360 (2014), which also isn't fully compatible with all current tests, scored 8.5. To learn more about my malware blocking test, see How We Test Malware Blocking.

Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Complete (2014) malware blocking chart

I repeated the test with the Internet connection initially cut off. Cut off from its brains in the cloud, Webroot had to treat all the samples as unknowns. After loading the samples I restored the connection and watched Webroot get to work identifying the malware and rolling back its effects. Webroot's scores came out roughly on par with the previous test. Of course a direct comparison isn't sensible because some of the samples themselves don't function without an Internet connection.