Choosing a security toolkit with anti-virus, firewall and anti-malware programs is a matter of personal preference, your needs, your technical ability and experience, features offered, user friendliness, ease of updating (and upgrading to new program release), ease of installation/removal, availability of quality/prompt technical support from the vendor and price. Other factors to consider include detection rates and methods, scanning engine effectiveness, how often virus definitions are updated, the amount of resources the program utilizes and how it may affect system performance. A particular anti-virus that works well for one person may not work as well for another.
Everyone's system is different and sometimes you may need to experiment in order to find the combination which works best and is most suitable for your needs. There is no universal "one size fits all" solution
that works for everyone.
I'm not an advocate of suites. All-in-one tools and suites are filled with extra features (including "bells & whistles") which typically use more system resources than separate programs that do the same task while other suites leave a much smaller footprint. Suites tend to have varying degrees of strengths and weaknesses accorded for each feature they incorporate. Most Internet Security Suites include a Firewall, which IMO is unnecessary since the Windows built-in firewall is adequate protection and many folks also use a router. In contrast, separate tools are designed, built and maintained with a greater focus in a specific area so they are generally of better quality and more effective at what they are designed to do. This means the program's performance for that particular feature is usually superior than their all-in-one counterpart. Further, all-in-one tools generally do not allow the user as much flexibility in tailoring default settings and usage.
If you are adamant about using a suite, then I would recommend one of the following:
There are several reputable labs which test the effectiveness of major anti-virus programs and security suites to include AV-Comparatives.org, Virus Bulletin Comparative Tests, AV-Test.org, NSS Labs Consumer Anti-Malware Products Group Test Report, etc.
These kinds of comparative testing results will vary
depending on a variety of factors to include but not limited to who conducted the testing, what they were testing for (type of threats, attack vectors, exploits), what versions of anti-virus software was tested, what type of scanning engine was used, and the ability to clean or repair. There are no universally predefined set of standards or criteria for testing
which means each test will yield different results. As such, you need to look for detailed information about how the tests were conducted, the procedures used, and data results.
Some of the testing criteria and standards may even be misleading.
Comparative testing: A bit of background for the uninitiated
...for some unknown reason...the renowned German test lab AV-TEST has quietly (there was no warning) modified its certification process. The changes mean that the certificates produced by the new rules are, to put it mildly, pretty useless for evaluating the merits of different AV products...With AV-TEST’s new certification standards, the onus is on the user to carefully investigate the actual results of each individual test…they may find that a product that blocked 99.9% of attacks has the same “certification” as a product that only blocked 55%.
Further, if you're dealing with zero-day malware
it's unlikely the anti-virus testing is going to detect anything. It takes time for new malware to be reported, samples collected, analyzed, and tested by anti-virus researchers before they can add a new threat to database definitions.