ESET NOD32 is AV Comparatives winner 2007

Congratulations ESET !
Keep up the good work!



Cheers

 

maybe for av-comparatives it is....

av-test: 93,65% on-demand (14th)
anti-malware.ru: 59% proactive (3rd)

for me, Kaspersky is the overall winner

 

I think so as well.

 

Just shows that the criteria for "best" are not universally agreed upon.
Jerry

 

CSJ has a a point on av-test. Nod32 seems to do better at flat file scanning on av-comparatives tests than it does anywhere else. However the proactive test at antimlaware.ru is flawed as it does not deduct for false positives. Any fool could write a program that flags every run time compressed program as infected and get a high percentage. [Actually this practice is not that uncommon, but limited to a few unpackers. One flagged by Norton/Symantec is no longer used for that reason.]

 

just reminder from teh report: the report considers the results reached during all the various tests of 2007 and not only the latest ones. KAV is on place 2, due the standard rating from may07.

 

There is an error on the report. It says that Avira got 99% on both tests but it didn't. On the first on-demand test, it got 98.85%. Or is it because there were corrections done and we will see them with the QA of August 2007 test-set & corrections in January?

 

As always best to see results over a number of sites.

av-comparatives test-bed consists of viruses and a cross section of other malware, while av-test.org uses mainly backdoors/trojans/spyware but does not include viruses. Settings for the AVs may also be different e.g. default settings or not.

So NOD32 may well be the best AV at av-comparatives but as Chris implies this is not the case over at other testing sites. I would think that KAV or Avira are the tops overall.

 

this is what I have been trying to say for a year, and no one listens. I said the best way is to globally look at all tests and see who is consistent in being at or near the top. And as much as I might like or not like to say it. The top 4 I have seen on average are Avira, Kaspersky,Bitdefender and F-Secure.Like it or not.

 

let me also add though, if you add in Eset,Dr.Web,Norton and about 10 others, the difference in all of them is really very small. The reality is they all work well, to a point.

 

i will correct this now. no, its not due the corrections.

 

Agreed. I conclude that the ones that work well on your particular system will do the job. When an application runs smoothly, and you have no infections what more can one ask? That is the reason we choose our favorites, even the freebies.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Hi!

Eset improves heuristic and engine, detection is based on very small number of false positives... E.g. some antiviruses detect infiltrations in files, which are damaged etc.

 

Perhaps Fortinet will get serious about removing that paranoid heuristic now that their product will not be tested in 2008 by av-comparatives

 

no, I do not think that will happen.

 

This is the reason i run nod in real-time and use kaspersky on demand. Win Win situation for me.

 

Andreas,
Two typos in the section "Comments"
- Kaspersky also has a behaviour blocker in its products (PDM). You missed the verb here.
- The latest product versions of Symantec .... (but may still noticiably slow down ....). You should replace noticiably with noticeably.

 

thx! fixed.

 

That is very interesting information. I always puzzle over how some products get the same rating everywhere and others vary greatly. One would think consistent good performance is better. It would also seem that the backdoors, trojans and spy ware are more dangerous and prevalent today than the ordinary computer virus.

 

I think "users need or preference" should be changed to users' needs or preferences.

 

Really?

Tell it to the malware that noddy missed to detect on my pc

 

ROTFL

 

Why is this so funny? Just about every AV misses something.

 

same goes for me after using avira and kis afterwards they both found stuff nod overlooked

 

Other AVs also have to employ this classic defense less often.