Tracking Anti-Malware Protection 2015 - Dennis Technology Labs

http://dennistechnologylabs.com/reports/s/a-m/symantec/DTL_TAMP2015_SYMC.pdf

"This report aims to measure how reactive anti- malware products are to new malware. It compares the effectiveness of products over a period of time, noting how quickly they adapt to protect against the latest threats.

This test compares free anti-malware products provided by well-known security companies with Symantec's latest consumer product Norton Security."

"This test was sponsored by Symantec."

Tested products:

Avast! Free Antivirus
AVG AntiVirus Free 2014
Avira Free Antivirus
Microsoft Security Essentials
Symantec Norton Security.

 

What a surprise that Norton came out on top.

 

When you look at whom they compared them with there is no need for manipulation.

 

I'm shocked too

 

Agreed. If I had a complaint, it would be that they didn't include anything that would be competition.

 

Sponsored by Symantec, Dennis Technology Labs already enjoys a great reputation (for the record how they deliberately murdered Malwarebytes Antimalware), last but not least Avira at AV Comparatives has had better results than Kaspersky this year in the dynamic test, and here it’s ranking as low as Microsoft...

 

In case you didn't read the report closely, there is a companion report available: "PC Anti-Malware Protection 2015", hxxp://www.dennistechnologylabs.com/av-protection2015.pdf .

 

Would be really funny if your product ends up in last place, while you paid for the "sponsored" test.

 

What is the whole point of this test. Almost no competitors. Moreover, sponsored tests are just downright ridiculous.

 

If it's sponsored doesn't mean they get any special treatment. They just have the right to later decide if they want to publish results or not. Of course they'll brag about them if they score well, otherwise you wouldn't even see this test...

It's also funny how avast! displays excellent response to new threats yet in other tests it's among the worse. Makes you wonder who to believe... But considering how many proactive features avast! team invested even into their free product i find it weird to be beaten in other tests by AV's which update once per 24 hours with very limited cloud capabilities, poor cloud automation processes etc.

 

Your point of view, not mine. I know your post is about Avast having scored reasonably well after Symantec in this test, but even though I think Avast will always be a great AV, its results at AV Comparatives and AV-Test have been far from stellar lately, and everyone here at Wilders is aware of this. After seeing with my own eyes how Dennis technology manipulated the MBAM test to make them look like a bunch of charlatans, to the point that the thread was withdrawn by the Wilders administrators, it is obvious that not only they are not reliable but they are part of the Symantec mendacious marketing machine.

 

Dennis labs in the past have published results of sponsored tests where the company sponsoring the test haven't come out top,one of those was sponsored by Symantec,they are one of the better test labs and would not show bias to the vendor sponsoring the test for fear of affecting their reputation within the industry,most of their testing isn't for public consumption but is for the industry,the conspiracy theorists and the frankly paranoid posting of some members here does make me smile at times,I think of those tested products only Norton offers an 100% virus free guarantee,so they themselves but be pretty confident in its performance!

 

AV-Test and AV-C also requires paiment for tests. So, do they all run on pay more, score more basis? No. Some are apparently still having hard time grasping the reality.

It's like Volvo sponsoring crash test. Of course they will top the charts, if they are confident enough they will score well. And that's what Symantec is doing. They are not picking their score, they are just so confident they will score well in the test they decide to be tested in. Since they are not the regular annual tests, they have to pay extra in order for Dennis labs to perform them. Which makes sense. They are independent, but they still need to pay their workers who test stuff. And with real-world tests like this it's very time consuming.

 

I totally agree. I remember when they (Dennis) started to get into controversy about accusations on bias towards Norton, Kaspersky suddenly became a temporary "winner" on their "tests" to try to ease the audience.

 

I disagree. MBAM is not an AV product. It should not be compared as one, but too many people want to include it in that group. Even on this forum it is included in the AV polls. Wrong category. It performed as I expected in that test, but I was not disappointed in those results and have no less respect for it for what it is intended to be.

 

Out of the reports clearly linked to on their website, Kaspersky has won 6/8 reports. 2012-2014. Norton 2/8.

 

This is a real surprise to me that contradicts me against every one of their "tests" that I remember have seen before. I can recall at least 5 out of 6 tests that were "won" by Norton. I'll have to check my eyes and mind "for sure".

 

Why did they test it without it's real time guard active?

 

Of course, me explaining what sponsored means in this case was considered off topic for you and you just erased it. Seriously...