Virus.GR test (Semptember 2009)

[tiagozt]

New virus.gr test by virusp:

More info:
www. virus. gr

Partial ranking:

Rank

1. G DATA 2009 20.0.2.1 - 98,89%
2. F-Secure 2009 9.00.148 - 98,72%
3. Kaspersky 2010 9.0.0.463 - 98,67%
4. AntiVir 9.0.0.381 Premium - 98,64%
5. ZoneAlarm Antivirus 8.0.400.020 - 98,62%
6. AntiVir 9.0.0.407 Personal - 98,56%
7. Ashampoo 1.61 - 98,48%
8. MultiCore 2.001.00036 - 98,36%
9. Paretologic 6.1.1 - 98,11%
10. TrustPort 2.8.0.2255 - 98,03%
11. eScan 10.0.977.4091 - 97,82%
12. The Shield 2009 12.0.12 - 97,72%
13. BitDefender 2010 11.0.15.297 - 97,61%
14. Ikarus 1.0.97 - 97,15%
15. AVG 8.5.392 Free - 97%
16. BitDefender 2009 12.0.12.0 Free - 96,37%
17. Nod32 4.0.437.0 - 95,97%
18. Avast 4.8.1335 Free - 95,87%
19. Comodo 3.9.95478.509 - 95,57%
20. Trend Micro Antivirus 17.1.1250 - 95,36%

READ the report in the website!

[Macstorm]

avira ranked 4th!.......I think I'll ditch it right now ::) ;D

[BrendanK.]

Ashampoo is the real surprise there!:thumb:

[NobleT]

ashampoo antivirus use avira's engine for antivirus and use a2's engine for antispyware.so why the score is not identical to avira?????

[BrendanK.]

They tested IObit...::)

They probably should of read what Security 360 is before testing it :P

[Cloud_Shadow]

If the results are to be somewhat believed, it actually is quite good to see comodo catching almost the same amount compared to Avast. Which i think is a great achievemnt.

[Fajo]

0-96% is the easy part its the 96-99% that's the real kicker. ;D

[sourav_gho]

-{ Quote: "If the results are to be somewhat believed, it actually is quite good to see comodo catching almost the same amount compared to Avast. Which i think is a great achievemnt." }-
yes Comodo is the biggest improver with over 121% improvement in detection and over 87% improvement in scanning speed. Great results for them.
But there is no mention of false positives...:(

[acr1965]

I don't think Ashampoo even sells their av anymore. But I believe the version of Ashampoo used an older avira engine and signatures- back when avira was av only, no antispyware. I don't think the Ashampoo product had been upgraded for the last 18 months or so.

[andyman35]

Interesting to see Paretologic included in this test,it's a company that's considered a borderline rogue by some observers.:-\

Also they say
"The test was carried out between 10 August-05 September 2009 in PC Pentium Dual Core 2Ghz, 2048MB DDRAM-2 and functional Windows XP Professional SP3.

All programs tested had the latest versions, upgrades and updates and used the full potential of each program, such as heuristics, etc."

Wouldn't that mean that the products tested later had an advantage?

[LoneWolf]

Well that test was certainly good for a laugh.

[cqpreson]

To my surprise,comodo has high score:o .Its antivirus component didn't release for a long time.It develops so fast.

[fax]

-{ Quote: "Well that test was certainly good for a laugh." }-

as many others, but still useful... and results not so far from other tests.

[Thankful]

Norton at 87.37% ? No. I'll wait for AV-Comparatives.

[RejZoR]

Weird results. I'll wait for AV-Comparatives as well.

[trjam]

me to.

[Tweakie]

There is at least one obvious error in the testing protocol: they are measuring the scanning speed on infected samples, whereas it should be measured from a clean set. This measurement only has a value for...anti-virus testers !

What's nice about this test is that it somewhat gives an idea of the detection rate of products that are not (yet) tested anywhere else. Yet, the results of Norton, Sophos and Panda are a quite surprising!

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "What's nice about this test is that it somewhat gives an idea of the detection rate of products that are not (yet) tested anywhere else." }-

I agree.
The only program that I would have liked to have seen on that list is FortiClient.

[trjam]

sometimes this tests are accurate then you know.;)

[Arin]

@Tweakie

Are you Dark Avenger? :P

Sorry for this OT, couldn't resist.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "avira ranked 4th!.......I think I'll ditch it right now ::) ;D" }-

I wouldn't. :D

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Weird how there are different results for Avira Personal and Premium. They use the same engine! I didn't read what and how they tested, so maybe they tested some web-site malware too? That's the only way I can think of Premium detecting/blocking more than Personal.

Regardless, thank goodness I don't care much for black-listing/behaviour-blocking software anymore. I only really use them for fun now." }-
The difference between the two products is insignificant and probably just amounts to when exactly the image was frozen with the latest updates of the time in place. virus.gr does not have nearly as good resources as any professional AV testing organization, and hence all products are installed and images frozen with the products updated to the signatures of the same day. However, I believe the signatures were frozen at different times during the day, due to which it is highly possible the higher detection rate of AntiVir Premium is just a matter of older vs. newer signatures. :)

[simisg]

i don't trust these results and i dont trust this tester.... don't ask me why
there are also some rogue software inside this test........

[JerryM]

I admit that I don't know how tests are conducted. However, the differences in F-Secure in this test and AVC tests seem too large.
Accordingly I have some reservations about the Virus GR test.

PS Is it mid September yet? :)

Regards,
Jerry

[Paul Wilders]

For those with some spare time: perform a search over on our main page for Petrakis. Happy reading ;)

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "I admit that I don't know how tests are conducted. However, the differences in F-Secure in this test and AVC tests seem too large.
Accordingly I have some reservations about the Virus GR test.

PS Is it mid September yet? :)

Regards,
Jerry" }-
Patience Jerry, wait till next week, maybe.;)

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "For those with some spare time: perform a search over on our main page for Petrakis. Happy reading ;)" }-
For those who did the search and have read all about it, I'd like to say that things have improved a little bit since the earlier tests over at virus.gr and even if the tests themselves are flawed, the tester's intentions do not seem malicious or biased in any way (apart from the slight "tilt" towards Kaspersky-based products in the virus.gr tests, probably due to the fact that VX collectors often use Kaspersky to sort/scan/test the collections).

With that in mind, interpret the results as you will. In the end, it is some interesting reading if nothing else :)