I don't know of any similar feature, but I can certainly do without it at that cost. In no way does the time-saving of the feature justify the price-tag. Personally I am willing to sacrifice quite a lot not to ever get entangled in closed software.
It is the price we HAVE to pay for free (libre) software to get the adoption needed to surpass the parasitic bloat-wares. That's kind of the point of my rants, if you like organic heirloom food, you don't subscribe to the convenience-services and products of Craft foods, Monsatan, DuPont, Nestle and so on. You get your ass over to the farmers market, where the fruits might not be humongus and super-glossy, but you know they contain actual nutrients, and not just water and toxins. Or at least you start reading product information in the grocery store before lazily piling up in the trolley. Always vote with your dollars!
Avast? The anti-virus? It is of no use to a Linux user, since Linux are virtually free of viruses. I have never used any AV, malware-detector or firewall in Linux, and I have never had a virus. In winblows I had viruses all the time, "despite" running AV and other software for fighting malware. The constant, unending war that will never be won. Unless you uninstall the virus "Windows" that is.
Anti-virus businesses in general are mostly scammy as far as I'm concerned. It makes perfect sense for ANY AV producer to also produce some viruses, so they can prove how fast and efficient they are at detecting and removing them. I'm just guessing now, but Avast and Kaspersky is probably the most notorious at this practice, despite their obvious, expected and complete denial. We can assume most others are doing the same, or they could not compete with the rankings of those who do. This is a GREAT example of why closed source is so detrimental and self-corrupting. Just like governments and other parasitical revenue-generators.