Best McAfee Alternatives in 2026: Choose by the Reason You Are Leaving

The short answer: choose by the reason you're leaving

Bitdefender is the strongest first product to evaluate when the goal is deeper current Windows protection, especially against files encountered while the PC is offline. Norton 360 is the closer replacement when McAfee is serving as a family bundle rather than only an antivirus. The two solve different departures, even though both can protect several platforms.

Microsoft Defender is the cleanest route when the real goal is to stop paying for a separate antivirus on one supported and carefully managed Windows 11 PC. ESET belongs on the shortlist when detailed security controls matter more than identity and backup extras. Avast Free is the free third-party resident option, but its prompts and privacy history deserve the same scrutiny as its current lab scores.

Don't begin with a download. Begin with the exact job McAfee is failing: price, renewal clarity, offline detection, family services, interface, policy control, a false positive or a damaged installation. Our current McAfee review provides the product baseline, while the preinstalled McAfee trial guide answers the narrower new-PC decision without forcing a product switch.

Before switching: McAfee isn't currently a weak or heavy antivirus

McAfee earned 6 out of 6 for protection, performance and usability in AV-TEST's May–June 2026 Windows 11 cycle. That result doesn't make it a universal winner, but it rules out the lazy claim that the product has stopped protecting modern Windows. Bitdefender, Norton, ESET and Avast also earned 18 out of 18 in that cycle, while Microsoft Defender earned 17.5.

The performance story is even less compatible with old internet folklore. In AV-Comparatives' April 2026 performance test, lower impact was better: McAfee scored 3.3, ahead of ESET at 4.2, Norton at 5.3, Avast at 5.5, Bitdefender at 9.6 and Defender at 12.9. This was a controlled low-end Windows 11 test, not a promise about every computer.

A slow PC may still have a real McAfee problem. A first scan, damaged update, competing filter driver, disk fault or a second resident antivirus can create symptoms that a brand-level score can't diagnose. Work through our McAfee CPU, memory and disk guide before buying another product solely to fix performance.

How we selected the McAfee alternatives

We first mapped current search intent and the practical questions people ask when they leave McAfee: stronger protection, a comparable family bundle, no separate Windows antivirus bill, more granular controls and a free third-party product. We then required each ranked alternative to provide permanent real-time protection. A cleanup scanner could still be useful, but it couldn't occupy the same category.

Each candidate was checked against current official plan pages, current independent Windows tests and product-specific limits. We used community discussions to find confusing decisions, not to manufacture a popularity vote. A Reddit reply can't establish protection, performance, renewal terms or compatibility on a different reader's device.

We also applied a US-market support test. A technically strong product doesn't belong in a normal US recommendation when purchase, renewal or updates are prohibited. McAfee's current consumer system requirements were used as the existing-platform baseline rather than assuming every old PC remains supported.

Finally, we separated antivirus from the surrounding jobs—VPN, password management, backup, parental controls, scam protection and identity monitoring—because replacing a McAfee bundle with one antivirus can quietly remove more than expected. The live McAfee Total Protection page establishes the marketed bundle, but the account and receipt establish what one household actually owns.

Current 2026 lab comparison

The February–May 2026 AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test used 400 web-based cases. Bitdefender protected 99.5% with two compromised cases and five false alarms; Norton and Avast each protected 99.3% with three compromised and five false alarms. Defender reached 99.0% with four compromised and no false alarms, while ESET and McAfee each reached 98.5% with six compromised and two false alarms.

The March 2026 Malware Protection Test adds an important offline dimension. Bitdefender detected 97.6% offline, ESET 96.4%, Norton and Avast 96.3%, Defender 89.2% and McAfee 86.1%. Final online protection was far closer—99.93% to 99.97% for these products—so the offline percentage describes one exposure condition rather than total product quality.

These rows come from different test sets with different methods; they aren't one mathematical league table. We use them to expose strengths and tradeoffs, not to average unrelated percentages into a fictional score. A future version, another platform or a different workload may behave differently.

Fast matrix: match the complaint to the first candidate

The matrix is a routing tool, not a reason to purchase without reading the details. A product can be first for one complaint and wrong for another. The decision becomes easier when the reader can finish the sentence “I am leaving because…” with something measurable.

If the answer is only “people online say McAfee is bad,” pause. The current tests don't support that blanket verdict, and a working paid entitlement may be better than an impulsive migration. If the answer is a specific feature, bill or technical fault, the remaining sections show which candidate deserves a trial.

Decision map: one reason, one first test

The visual begins with the unmet job instead of forcing every reader through the same ranking. Protection depth leads to Bitdefender, a comparable family bundle to Norton, the no-separate-cost Windows route to Defender, granular control to ESET and a free third-party resident product to Avast. The split-stack branch exists for readers who want fewer bundled services rather than another all-in-one suite.

When two branches matter, compare two products sequentially rather than installing them together. Record the same browser, file-copy, application-launch and scan tasks on each trial. A controlled home comparison is more useful than an internet claim made on unknown hardware.

When the branch ends at Defender plus specialist services, write down who owns each job. Antivirus, browser reputation, backup, password management, VPN and identity monitoring don't become one system merely because they run on the same laptop. Clear ownership prevents gaps and duplicate subscriptions.

Bitdefender: strongest first look for protection and offline depth

Bitdefender is the most defensible first alternative when protection evidence—not bundle similarity—is driving the switch. It led this group in the current real-world result at 99.5%, and its 97.6% offline detection was materially higher than McAfee's 86.1%. Both still earned 18/18 in the latest AV-TEST cycle, which keeps the comparison grounded rather than turning one result into a demolition.

The current Bitdefender US consumer range spans individual and family plans, with broader privacy, scam and identity features appearing higher in the range. Total Security includes cross-platform protection but lists a 200 MB per day bundled VPN allowance. “Bitdefender” therefore doesn't identify one fixed bundle.

Read our full Bitdefender review for the protection and usability picture, then use the Bitdefender pricing and renewal guide to match devices and features. The direct Bitdefender versus McAfee comparison is the better next page when those are the final two candidates.

Who should—and shouldn't—choose Bitdefender

Choose Bitdefender when a household values current protection depth and wants one established suite across several consumer platforms. It's especially persuasive for a laptop that often receives files before or during unreliable connectivity, because the current offline result reveals a real difference. That still needs a trial on the actual applications.

Don't choose it because a first-year banner looks cheaper without checking renewal and the exact plan. Don't assume every VPN, identity or scam feature is unlimited or available in every region. A broader family plan can also recreate the bundle complexity that prompted the departure from McAfee.

Bitdefender was slower than McAfee in the current controlled performance test, though neither number predicts every PC. Let the initial update and first scan settle, then measure the work that matters. Gaming, development tools, archives and large media libraries expose different costs than idle Task Manager.

Norton 360: closest like-for-like family bundle

Norton is the closest alternative when McAfee currently supplies more than malware protection. The live Norton 360 Deluxe US page lists five devices, VPN, 50 GB of Windows PC cloud backup and parental controls. That creates a recognizable replacement path for a household using McAfee's surrounding services.

The same page displayed $49.99 for the first year and $124.99 at renewal when checked on July 31, 2026. Those numbers can change, but their relationship is the lesson: a close feature replacement can have a very different second-term cost. Save the checkout disclosure rather than relying on the first-year headline.

Our Norton 360 review covers the current security and bundle tradeoffs. Before buying, read the Norton plans, pricing and renewal guide; if the choice has narrowed to two suites, use the McAfee versus Norton comparison.

Who should—and shouldn't—choose Norton 360

Choose Norton when several included services are already concrete requirements. A family that will use the VPN, Windows backup and parental tools can gain from one account and one support route. A reader who only wants antivirus is less likely to capture the same value.

Don't choose Norton to escape renewal complexity without examining the renewal. Verify which identity services operate in the buyer's country, which devices count toward the entitlement and whether backup applies to the intended platform. An iPhone displaying the Norton app doesn't gain Windows PC cloud backup.

Norton's current lab case is strong: 18/18 at AV-TEST, 99.3% in the real-world test and 96.3% offline detection. McAfee still led the performance result and matched Norton's final online protection in the March test. This is a trade between systems, not a rescue from a failed antivirus.

Microsoft Defender: best no-separate-cost Windows route

Microsoft Defender is already part of supported Windows, so the “switch” is usually a provider handoff rather than another purchase. Microsoft's consumer Windows antivirus guidance says the built-in protection is generally sufficient for an updated PC used deliberately, while third-party suites can add cross-device, identity or parental services.

Current evidence supports Defender as a credible baseline, not a perfect one. It recorded 99.0% protection and zero false alarms in the February–May real-world test, but 89.2% offline detection and the highest impact score in the April comparison used here. AV-TEST deducted half a performance point in May–June.

Our Microsoft Defender review explains antivirus, SmartScreen, firewall and offline-scan boundaries. The is Defender good enough guide turns those components into a practical decision, while Defender versus McAfee handles the direct comparison.

What Defender replaces—and what it doesn't

Defender can replace McAfee's resident Windows antivirus role on a supported PC after the handoff is verified. It works best with current Windows updates, SmartScreen or browser reputation, firewall, backups, account protection and a user who treats unexpected attachments and login prompts carefully. “Built in” doesn't mean “maintenance free.”

Defender doesn't become a McAfee family subscription across macOS, Android and iOS. It also doesn't automatically replace a VPN, identity monitoring, personal-data cleanup, parental plan or every scam-protection feature. Those jobs need a deliberate replacement or an explicit decision to stop paying for them.

Microsoft's antivirus provider guidance warns against running two different antimalware products at the same time. After McAfee removal, open Windows Security and confirm that Microsoft Defender Antivirus is active, updated and able to scan. A visible shield icon alone isn't the check.

ESET: best fit for granular, security-first controls

ESET fits readers who want their next purchase to center on antivirus, firewall and configurable protection rather than the largest identity bundle. The current ESET HOME Security plan page separates Essential, Premium and Ultimate tiers. Windows, macOS and Android are covered differently, while iOS receives selected privacy and identity features rather than an iOS antivirus.

The current lab picture is credible but not a reason to promise perfection. ESET earned 17.5/18 at AV-TEST, matched McAfee at 98.5% with two false alarms in the real-world test and reached 96.4% offline detection. Its March false-alarm count was higher than several candidates, another reminder that different test sets illuminate different behavior.

Our ESET review explains the protection controls and their learning curve. Use the ESET pricing guide before checkout, then consult ESET versus McAfee when control depth and bundle breadth are the real choice.

ESET isn't an honest “McAfee but lighter” promise

ESET has a long reputation for a restrained security-first product, but the current controlled result doesn't support promising a faster PC. McAfee scored 3.3 and ESET 4.2 in the April performance test, with lower better. The difference was small, and both were fast in that method, but the order matters when correcting a stale claim.

Choose ESET for controls, product philosophy and the exact plan—not for an untested performance guarantee. Trial it with the real applications, let first-run work finish and compare repeatable tasks. An advanced HIPS or firewall rule can also create friction that default performance scores don't measure.

Readers who don't want to manage granular settings should leave tested defaults in place or choose a simpler path. More switches don't automatically create more protection. A poorly understood broad exclusion can erase the advantage the reader expected from moving to a more configurable product.

Avast Free: best free third-party resident alternative

Avast Free is the clearest alternative for a reader who wants a visible third-party resident antivirus without another antivirus fee. Avast provides an official free route, which is the only appropriate installer source. Cracks, keys and repackaged installers turn a cost-saving decision into a supply-chain risk.

Its current Windows evidence is strong: 18/18 at AV-TEST, 99.3% in the real-world test, 96.3% offline detection and a 5.5 performance impact score. That makes Avast Free a serious security candidate, not merely a trial funnel. Free status still doesn't promise the VPN, identity, firewall or privacy modules shown elsewhere in the product family.

Our Avast review separates the free protection from paid extras and prompts. The Avast Free versus Premium guide helps prevent accidental plan inflation, while Avast versus McAfee handles the direct engine and bundle decision.

Avast's prompts and privacy history belong in the decision

A free product can create commercial pressure through upgrade messages and feature locks. Evaluate whether the household understands which alerts describe a real security event and which promote a paid module. Confusing the two weakens trust even when the antivirus engine performs well.

The US Federal Trade Commission's Avast case and order concerned browsing data collected and sold through Jumpshot from 2014 through 2020. The order included a ban on selling browsing data for advertising and privacy-program obligations. This is historical conduct with current relevance, not proof that the 2026 antivirus engine fails.

Some readers will accept that history in light of current testing and the formal order; others won't. The honest page exposes the fact instead of hiding it beneath a free-product label. If privacy trust is the reason for leaving McAfee, that judgment may outweigh a small lab difference.

Split stack: Defender plus only the specialist services you need

A split stack uses Defender for Windows real-time antivirus and buys other jobs separately only when the household needs them. A dedicated password manager, backup provider, VPN or identity service can be easier to migrate and compare than a large antivirus bundle. This route is often the cleanest answer to “I use only two of McAfee's ten features.”

The tradeoff is operational. More vendors mean more accounts, privacy policies, renewal dates and support boundaries. Write down who owns each job and test restore, account recovery and emergency contact paths before canceling the old McAfee service.

Don't use specialist tools to recreate overlapping real-time antivirus layers. One resident provider remains responsible for malware prevention. Our guide to running two antivirus products explains why extra engines can cause file locks, performance problems and ambiguous provider status rather than simple additive protection.

Protection rates, false alarms and offline detection answer different questions

Real-world protection measures malicious web and download scenarios within a defined test. Offline detection asks how the product behaves without cloud help, while final online protection includes later layers. False alarms measure the cost of incorrectly blocking legitimate material in that test set.

Bitdefender's current 99.5% real-world and 97.6% offline results make its protection case clear. Defender's zero real-world false alarms may matter more on a PC full of uncommon tools, while McAfee's 99.97% final online protection shows why its lower offline number isn't equivalent to 13.9% of normal connected malware getting through.

Readers with developer tools, mods, remote administration utilities or line-of-business software should inspect alert and quarantine workflows during a trial. Preserve the reason for every existing McAfee exclusion, but don't copy broad exclusions blindly. A narrower, reviewed exception is safer than importing years of undocumented trust.

Performance: McAfee led the current benchmark

McAfee's 3.3 impact score is the most uncomfortable fact for a generic alternatives article—and therefore one of the most useful. It means a switch to Bitdefender, Defender, Norton, ESET or Avast can't honestly be sold as an automatic speed upgrade. Controlled benchmarks can overturn community reputation.

The lab result still can't diagnose one PC. Measure idle behavior after startup settles, the first and repeat scan, browser launches, file copies, archive extraction and the applications that matter. A failing disk, another filter driver or pending Windows update can dominate the result.

If McAfee behaves badly on the actual machine after repair and measurement, switching is justified even though the average benchmark is strong. Record the before state so the replacement must beat a known workload. Otherwise, a faster-feeling reboot can be mistaken for a lasting product difference.

Windows, macOS, Android and iOS aren't interchangeable

The independent results used in this guide are Windows results. They don't transfer to Mac malware, Android applications, iOS web protection or a Chromebook's sandboxed Android environment. A multi-platform logo means one account supports several apps, not that every app supplies identical system access.

Bitdefender and Norton offer the broadest bundle paths in this shortlist, while ESET's plan features vary by platform. Defender here means the built-in Windows antivirus. Avast has products beyond Windows, but “Avast Free” must still be checked on the target platform rather than inferred from the Windows recommendation.

Map each actual device before paying. Our McAfee for Mac review, McAfee Android review, McAfee iPhone review and McAfee Chromebook review show what the existing product really does on each system. The missing capability may be limited to one device, not the whole household.

Replace the McAfee extras you actually use

Before cancellation, inventory McAfee VPN, identity monitoring, scam tools, password storage, parental features, personal-data cleanup and any support or insurance benefit. Mark each one as used, unused or unknown. Only the used jobs need a replacement, and unknown jobs need an account check rather than an assumption.

Norton is the closest all-in-one route; higher Bitdefender plans also add privacy, scam and identity components. Defender, ESET and Avast Free are better judged first as security products, with specialist services added separately. Feature names can conceal material differences in countries, limits, platforms and escalation rules.

Our McAfee VPN guide, identity monitoring review, Scam Detector review and Personal Data Cleanup review define those jobs before migration. Don't terminate an open identity case or unverified backup because a new plan card displays a similar icon.

Compare the renewal and duplicate-service math

Start with the amount that will renew, not the largest discount percentage. Record the term, device count, taxes, add-ons, auto-renewal benefits and which purchase channel owns billing. Our McAfee pricing and renewal guide explains that baseline before it's compared with another introductory offer.

Then value only services the household will actually use. A $125 bundle can be cheaper than separate antivirus, VPN, backup and parental products when those four replace existing bills. It's expensive when the buyer wanted only antivirus and already pays for better specialist tools.

Save the new order summary and renewal disclosure as a PDF or screenshot. Set a reminder before the cancellation window, even if the vendor promises email notice. The purpose isn't to distrust every company; it's to prevent the same renewal surprise from following the user to a different logo.

Safe switching order: hand off the provider without a gap

First, preserve evidence. Record the McAfee account, entitlement, renewal channel, quarantine and recent detections. McAfee's current consumer policy and legal page is the vendor route for current agreement terms; resolve disputed quarantined files or keep the information needed to investigate them later.

Second, download one replacement from the official vendor and read its coexistence instructions. Some installers ask for the existing resident product to be removed before setup; follow the documented route instead of forcing both filters to stay active. Keep the installer and account access ready so the interval is controlled.

Third, restart, update the selected product and confirm its name in Windows Security. Run a baseline scan and test normal applications before removing temporary notes or old installers. Microsoft's supported Windows uninstall route is the normal first step; our complete McAfee uninstall guide covers the official MCPR fallback when removal fails.

Cancellation isn't uninstall; uninstall isn't cancellation

Uninstalling McAfee changes the device. It doesn't reliably stop auto-renewal, close an app-store subscription or cancel a plan bought through an internet provider or retailer. The billing owner must be identified and the renewal state changed in that channel.

Canceling future renewal changes the account. It doesn't necessarily end the paid entitlement immediately or remove the application from family devices. Save confirmation and the effective date, then decide when each device should hand off to the replacement.

Follow our McAfee cancellation and refund guide for billing evidence, purchase-channel differences and refund boundaries. Keeping these jobs separate prevents the two most expensive mistakes: paying for software already removed and removing software while assuming protection remains through the paid date.

Can Malwarebytes Free remain as a second opinion?

An on-demand Malwarebytes Free scan can complement one resident antivirus when its real-time components aren't competing. Use it for a defined second opinion, update it before the scan and avoid launching simultaneous scans. The role is verification, not an invisible second permanent provider.

Other on-demand scanners follow the same boundary. Microsoft Safety Scanner, ESET Online Scanner and vendor rescue tools may answer specific incident questions, but they don't inherit the continuous role of McAfee, Defender, Bitdefender, Norton, ESET or Avast Free. A clean result is limited to the tool, settings, files reached and moment scanned.

If two resident products are visible in Windows Security, resolve the state rather than adding a third tool. Check service status, product documentation and recent logs. Broad mutual exclusions can hide the conflict without restoring a clear protection owner.

Why TotalAV isn't the automatic answer to McAfee marketing concerns

TotalAV appears prominently in many commercial “McAfee alternatives” results. It may suit some buyers, but it's a poor automatic recommendation when the reason for leaving is aggressive introductory pricing, renewal anxiety or upsell pressure. The replacement should improve the original problem, not merely reset the first-year clock.

Our TotalAV review should be read with the exact live checkout and renewal disclosure. Compare installed modules, device count, cancellation channel and real workload before deciding. Affiliate prevalence in the search results isn't product evidence.

This exclusion isn't a claim that TotalAV detects nothing. It's a fit decision for this page's audience and current alternatives. Bitdefender, Norton, Defender, ESET and Avast produce cleaner first routes for the five reasons mapped above.

Why Malwarebytes Premium isn't the stronger default replacement

Malwarebytes is valuable for cleanup and can provide resident protection in paid plans, but the current comparison doesn't make Premium a stronger default successor to McAfee. McAfee led the April performance test, while current protection and false-alarm results don't create a clear general advantage for Malwarebytes.

Choose Malwarebytes when its specific interface, remediation workflow or ecosystem answers a known need—not because “antimalware” sounds more specialized than antivirus. Our Malwarebytes review and McAfee versus Malwarebytes comparison establish the proper product boundary.

Malwarebytes Free is a different proposition from Premium. The free on-demand role can remain useful beside one resident provider, while Premium must be evaluated as that provider. Mixing the names creates a false free-versus-paid comparison.

Why AVG isn't a separate engine choice from Avast

AVG can be a legitimate product, but it belongs to the same company and engine family as Avast. Ranking both as independent technical alternatives would create the appearance of more engine diversity than the shortlist actually contains. We therefore use Avast Free as the representative free third-party route.

Interface, packaging, prompts and specific features can still differ, so a reader may prefer AVG. Our AVG review and AVG versus McAfee comparison remain useful for that brand-level decision. The distinction is editorial, not a claim that the applications are identical pixels.

The same privacy-history diligence should follow the corporate family. A different product name doesn't erase ownership context. Readers choosing primarily for privacy trust should evaluate the company, current settings and policies as well as the engine.

Why Kaspersky isn't a US recommendation

Kaspersky can perform strongly in international laboratory tests, but this is a US-market consumer page. The US Bureau of Industry and Security maintains a current Kaspersky prohibition resource covering transactions and update restrictions. Ordinary acquisition and support are therefore not normal US options.

A protection score can't override a market where the product can't be bought, renewed or updated normally. Readers outside the US still need to verify local law, payment, support and update delivery. Regional availability is part of product quality in practice.

Our Kaspersky review separates technical evidence from the policy boundary. Excluding it here isn't an attempt to rewrite laboratory results; it's a recommendation boundary for the audience this page serves.

What current Reddit questions reveal—and what they can't prove

A July 2026 r/antivirus question about installing McAfee shows how quickly an OEM trial, paid entitlement, privacy concern and product reputation become one vague decision. A June multi-device recommendation thread shows that platform mix and renewal are often more important than a single PC score.

A May discussion of McAfee winning the performance test captures the gap between current data and persistent reputation. Comments can highlight disbelief or configuration questions. They can't reproduce the lab or guarantee the result on another machine.

We use these threads directionally and don't quote invented users or count recommendations. Replies rarely share the same hardware, region, product version, plan, threats or measurement method. The useful evidence is the question the community keeps asking; the answer still comes from current primary terms, tests and an actual trial.

Work, school and managed devices need an administrator

A managed McAfee endpoint may report to an employer, school or service provider. The local user may not own the license, policy, exclusions or authority to remove it. Installing a consumer trial can break telemetry, containment or compliance even when the installer succeeds.

Report the exact problem with timestamps, detection names, file paths and application versions. Business replacement requires evaluation of deployment, policy, EDR or MDR, isolation, logging, data residency, support and incident response. A home Norton or Bitdefender plan isn't the equivalent of a managed endpoint platform.

Don't use this article as authorization to bypass management. If the device belongs to the user but still carries an old organization profile, resolve ownership and enrollment first. Security software is only one layer of that cleanup.

When keeping McAfee is the better choice

Keep McAfee when the current entitlement covers the household, the used bundle services work, renewal is acceptable and no measured technical problem remains. Current lab evidence supports it as a competitive product. Changing a functioning security system always creates migration work and a chance of misconfiguration.

Repair instead of replace when the complaint is one failed update, a stuck scan, a browser warning or a damaged install. Our McAfee troubleshooting guide, scan and quarantine guide and fake McAfee popup guide separate product faults from browser scams and expected behavior.

Keeping McAfee is also reasonable during a paid term while a replacement is tested methodically. Turn off future renewal if needed, record the effective date and migrate devices in a controlled order. Urgency created by a marketing countdown isn't a security requirement.

Six practical switching scenarios

The scenarios are starting points. A mixed-device family that uses no bundle extras may still prefer a simple per-platform stack, while one Windows laptop with an active identity case may justify a broader service. Write down the exception rather than forcing the household into the nearest row.

A candidate is ready only after the exact current plan is checked and the real workload is tested. The table can't see regional pricing, existing subscriptions, accessibility needs or a sensitive application. Those details belong in the final decision.

Final checklist: reason, evidence, plan and verified handoff

Name the reason for leaving in one sentence and select the first candidate that directly improves it. Check current official plan terms, operating systems, renewal and the independent evidence for the exact platform. Don't turn one percentage into a promise or an old reputation into a current fact.

Inventory the McAfee services in use, preserve account and quarantine evidence, and download only from the official replacement source. Keep one resident antivirus, follow coexistence instructions and restart. Confirm the named provider, updates and baseline scan in Windows Security before declaring the migration complete.

For most readers, the first route is now clear: Bitdefender for current protection depth, Norton for a close family bundle, Defender for no separate Windows antivirus bill, ESET for granular controls and Avast Free for a third-party free product. Keeping McAfee remains a valid outcome when it already solves the actual problem better than the proposed replacement.