Question: Is Webroot SecureAnywhere a Full Anti-Malware or just an AV?

Virus:  A file infector that replicates by inserting its code into existing executable files.
Malware: All malicious software, of which a virus is just one example.
 
Why "Anti-Virus"?  Because a lot of people know that a "computer virus" is bad, but don't know what "malware" is.  Case in point: I've had a customer tell me that they were upset about anti-male-ware and not anti-female-wear, and said it sounded sexist.
 
MBAM:
Broad spectrum antimalware.  Similar to powerful antibiotics, it takes a shoot first and ask questions later approach to detection and cleanup.  This gives it a tremendous leg-up on things, but can also have detrimental side effects on occasion.  It will also look for remnants, hints, and other such things that could be related to or previously dropped by something that could be related to or even resemble malware.  It will also examine javascript and java files that WSA ignores (intentionally).  In those files, it will trigger an alert even if the file is unable to infect anything newer than Firefox 1.3 or IE 6.  This is legitimate, since it -IS- a potential avenue for infection, however WSA doesn't waste time focusing on the avenues, but rather on the threats themselves.
 
Installing MBAM and WSA at the same time...
If BOTH find something, WSA will ignore it.  Why?  When WSA tries to look at something, MBAM will want to look first.  WSA steps aside and lets MBAM look first because WSA knows MBAM is a legitimate security program.  MBAM flags it as bad, removes it, and WSA never even has a chance (or need) to look at it.  If MBAM missed it and let WSA see it, WSA would remove it since MBAM would be ignoring it.  If MBAM missed it and WSA didn't know anything about it at all, MBAM would completely ignore it and WSA would watch it like a hawk in case it did something bad, then roll back everything it did up to the point it did something bad.
 
Is WSA just an AV?  No.  It detects more malware than just viruses.
 
Is WSA a full AM? Subject to opinion. Some people consider third party tracking cookies to be malware, or javascript exploit files to be malware. WSA ignores both of these.  Cookies are harmless and the JS exploit file is nothing but a way to try to load an actual threat onto the system...  It's a delivery method, but WSA does not consider it a sufficient threat in and of itself to warrant using the user's system resources examining the JS.
 
My $0.02