Winner :Bitdefender Top Rated:AVG,Avira,ESET,Emsisoft,F-secure,Fortinet,Kaspersky http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/avc_sum_201412_en.pdf
Thank you for sharing. Interesting: first three in overall standing are also winners (at same order) at Proactive Protection tests.
Oh that crapware BD that no one likes and wouldn't let there dog use, Hmmm did outstanding again. Good job Bit
Well, I would say freeware, with all the promos neverending. The next step will be to offer it against a reward from the company to the user.
This doesn't factor any improvements. For example AhnLab v9 is really the one to test, it has completely new DNA technologies in it, but at the same time it's not available for consumers from what I can see. They tested v8, which is discontinued. Also Trend stood no chance, as they didn't improve to the level they are now at until practically the end of the year. Norton isn't tested. So that pretty much leaves only products I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole anyway. Meh, nothing to see for me.
It's not easy being at the top. Now, if they would return the advanced settings that were taken away since the introduction of the 2012 version.
Interesting, the results and the winner made me interested in Bitdefender AV (I have a 5 year / 5 device license anyway collecting dust), so just before trying it.....took a look at Bitdefender's forums just to see if the amounts of complaints have decreased or are tolerable.......it's a like a haunted house......scary. While the detection rate may be good, the system quirks that it brings are horrible. This is by far the buggiest AV programming I've ever seen. Bdfndisf6.sys Bsod. "windows Explorer" Process Is Blocked! Bitdefender 2015 Seems To Break Swtor Bd Breaks Windows Backup Bd Blocks Cable Modem Admin Page Realtime Protection Will Not Switch On Cpu Maxing Out During Scan Kb3000850 + Windows 8.1 Pro + Intermittent Freezes, Unresponsive Bsod Issues Slow Boot Up
Avira got 'silver' at the same level as Kaspersky for the real world dynamic test which is the area where it has improved dramatically in 2014. It is an excellent performance.
This is true of most AV official forums, if someone has a problem they go there to shout about it. A bit like if someone wants to be negative about one, they have to dig back a few months to find the posts to link. I am sure we could all go to one of the official forums and do the same. All those AVs from the top half of those results have done well, what suits one person or their set up will not necessarily be suitable for someone else. We make our choice and if it works we stay with it.
I am sure Trend will do just fine for 2015. I am using it right now without problems and trust its abilities. The results of these tests no longer cause me to go out and purchase an av just because it made product of the year. Others are quite capable and none are perfect.
Well none of your favorites products won the price, but then again why worry, you've said repeatedly that you don't agree with AV Comparatives testing procedures. Trend has got excellent results, Norton is not tested (it might have scored very well with the dynamic test, but it wouldn't have won anyway because of other tests). Why make an issue about Ahnlab? It has had the worst rate of detection for as long as I can remember, and suddenly because one single good result, it should get a special mention? "...a ten foot pole anyway". Let me ask you, why would I take your word about choosing an AV (without any tests, only your certifications) and ignore AV Comparatives and their very detailed tests?
Does anyone here know where the summary of the Summary Reports is? This summary shows a list of each years winners going back to 2004 or 2006.
Why is Bitdefender internet security 2015 still using about 230 mb of memory? I find this a lot. How is it then that they score good in the performance test of av comparatives?
Memory usage only matters if your system does not have enough RAM installed. If you have plenty of RAM e.g. 4GB of more than the amount of RAM a security solution uses does not matter, as you will still have plenty of free RAM even if the security software is using several hundred megabytes of RAM. What matters is CPU and disk use, as if either of these becomes too high, then system performance will be affected. Infact some antiviruses with low RAM usage have much higher disk usage than antiviruses which use plenty of RAM.
Please read: PDF, page 4: "Test Methods" & page 7: "Test cases" http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/avc_per_201410_en.pdf ------------------------- Also: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...avast-and-mbam-pro.338551/page-2#post-2210409