Anti-Virus - State of the Nation Results - 2013 1st half

Looking at AV-Comp; MRG; AV-Test, and Virus Bulletin to get an idea of how 2013 AV applications perform over a cross section of test approaches. The idea was to see if any consistent results emerged. It seems they do..........





KEY :
@ Indicates application passed ≥ 99% of all available 2013 Real World Protection; File Detection; Zero Day and 4 week Detection in both test months indicated. All user dependent results are taken as successful in protection/detection.....[Outstanding !]

β Indicates application scored at ≥ 96% of same......[maybe a good result ??]

x Indicates application scored lower............[not a good result]

nt Indicates application was not tested......... [no conclusion]



No surprises here....the bitdefender engine is outstanding...

The other good results are : -

(1) Emsisoft is now performing very well, and the issue of false positives may have been resolved here.

Makes sense to me that Emsisoft, using the Bitdefender engine, would have comparable fp's....all things being equal. I also like that the developer lurks here at Wilders, and is constantly improving EAM........I think it's high time to have another look at EIS...........[high RAM footprint not with standing!]

(2) Avast has generally done well, considering it is just an AV against IS suites.

(3) Kaspersky is top notch, as always.

(4) Lack luster performance from AVG and Avira......

- cheers,
feandur

 

Do you mind adding Fortinet/lite/free (the AV which does not get a lot of fan's here at Wilders, but has made an impressive improvement over last three years).

 

Here ya' are.........



KEY :
@ Indicates application passed ≥ 99% of all available 2013 Real World Protection; File Detection; Zero Day and 4 week Detection in both test months indicated. All user dependent results are taken as successful in protection/detection.....[Outstanding !]

β Indicates application scored at ≥ 96% of same......[maybe a good result ??]

x Indicates application scored lower............[not a good result]

nt Indicates application was not tested......... [no conclusion]


-cheers,
feandur

 

Nice compilation.

 

Wouldn't it be a bit more efficient to post a link to a Google Docs document instead of posting screenshots of your OpenOffice?

 

Respected Sir,
I thought of so many self-defacing ways an old timer like me could reply to your post, but they all amounted to a sickening display of my 19th century ignorance.

Might just be best to nod my head in agreement and quit while I'm behind.

<now, where did i put that link to wikipedia>

LOL.

- best regards
feandur

 

@ Noob

-cheers,
feandur

 

Beautiful.

 

excellent complilation. Thanks for your efforts!
Is it possible to add nod32 to the mix.

 

@ harsha_mic

For ESET, the results would be :

β / β / β / β / 100.

Generally @ 97% or there abouts.

I will need to re-score now that May results are out.

- cheers,
feandur

 

With the new May 2013 results from AV - Comp included the only change in the above table is that eScan now drops to β since it reaches only 98.4% in May, and so falls below the ≥ 99% criteria to receive @.

I also should add that the result for Symantec, under AV - Comp, is only based on 'file detection test' since it was not tested with the 'real world protection test'.

-cheers,
feandur.

 

Yep, don't consider these bogus AV-Comp file detection test. Its not indicative of real world performance as you can see from the other tests.

 

Not being nit-picky but you misspelled Symantec.

Would also be nice if you indicated if product is AV or IS if known.

Also if you added four columns for each ranking category for each vendor, chart would be a lot easier to read. You could then use a tick mark or "X" for applicable category.