It's opinion based because it depends entirely on your actions and computer use as well as a rather large amount of luck.
Imagine there are two people:
- the first person frequents every pron, darkweb and script-kiddie website they can but they have script blockers and downloads everything they can get their hands on.
- the second person visits only Forbes.com but has no ad-blocker nor antivirus
Which of these two (given that advertising malware is a thing) is more likely to get a malware infection?
The answer is we have no clue which is more likely and therefore cannot offer anything more than anecdotal evidence that "my grandfather was good and never visited bad sites but got a malware infection but my brother visits all the hives of villainy and has never caught a thing".
Almost all antivirus, like medicine in general, takes a risk-based approach to protection. They all have some level of permissiveness in how they protect you so that you can actually still use the computer.
Whether one is "good enough" for you depends entirely on what you are going to be doing and what other protections you might put in place.
- do you keep full daily backups? If so then you might not care about antivirus at all, as all your data is safe.
- do you browse "seedy" websites and interact with people who might want to steal your identity and data? If so you might was a full internet protection suite along with VPN and anonymised browser.
- do you "just" check your email and visit TheSafestSiteOnTheInternet.com? Then Windows Defender might be fine.
We cannot say for certain because there are far too many opinions of what constitutes "safe" browsing, and we have no idea what you might do in the future.