AV-comparatives August2005 results released

Noted

 

AVK uses Kaspersky bases and Bit Defender. As such, it will score superior to the base KAV products with both engines activated and on full settings.

Not to mention AVK is far far more bug free than KAV.. I refuse to use KAV ever again, because the 4 times i've tried it, it always caused system instabilities, was buggy, or otherwise I ended up formatting that PC to clean it off. Not to mention the fact that KAV has some of the most useless fluff in their bases and i've found the KAV people to be rude at times.

It's a product I avoid, regardless. AVK however I will/do use on client machines because it is a nice product.

 

then just stick with mcafee. its a very good AV and NAV only outpeformed it by very little. also u shouldnt use such tests for choosing an AV.

 

Summary Results;

TeknO

Read the first post in this thread please. AV-Comparatives does not want their test results published on other sites.

 

just a short reminder (see first post or on the website):
Please note that it is NOT allowed to provide the results/tables/documents on other sites or to put links to subpages. Please always link only to www.av-comparatives.org

 

OK I changed it.

Summary Results;
Kaspersky is the best in the test...

 

IbK- can you clarify the point you are trying to convey in section 6 "Non detected samples in the test bed"

I am confused in the wording of the note under the graph,
I see that 68% were detected by all 12, ok easy enough. But the graph break down is confusing. (NOT a single scanner!) means that they were flagged by one of the 12 but not the same one? Soory but I just can seem to break it down.

//EDIT//

This is what I have so far:

286,396.28 <-- 68% of samples, in numerical value
421,171 <-- total number of samples
----------
134,775 <-- total number of samples not caught by all 12 scanners

Maybe you could give a 1-12 just numbered list to simplify it?

//EDIT #2//
So no sample made it by all 12 without getting flagged, right?

 

Exactly. The difference is so insignificant that the cost, frustration and aggravation of "switching" a product simply because it was outperformed by fractions of percentage points wouldn't make any sense.

Besides, who's to say that results like these don't "inspire" a company to improve their product even more.....while others might slack off a little.....and 3 to 6 months from now we have completely different results. After all, we had different results from May to August

 

I think you got it likuidkewl.

@JRCATES: you mean February to August. because may and november are retrospective tests...

OT:
BTW: I know I am annoying anyone when I write things that you ALL already read (like suggested everywhere on the site, bold, underlined, in color, etc.) in the test report, but maybe some of you forget it; here a short quote:
"Products belonging to a category can be considered to be as good as the other products in the same category regarding the on-demand detection rate. All products in the ADVANCED+ category offer very high level of on-demand detection. Selection of a product from this category should not be based on detection score alone. The quality of support, easy of use and system resource use should be considered when selecting a product."

 

i look at all of them. Those are data only. And how one analyse or interpret is another thing. I know AntiVir does relatively bad in Win Virus and Scripts. I hope they improve as well.

 

I must respectfully disagree. When choosing an Av a person who does not work in the field for a living either building ,repairing, installing networks or computers ( in other words the average Joe) must gleam information from whatever sources he can. Many people with out a techy background want the best protection possible even if it's only a few percentage points. I like NOD's zero day protection but originally got NOD because I have a older machine and wanted to limit drag on my system. Using this test to choose an Av is valid in my opinion because after all many people consult statistics when choosing other products like a cars front impact crash test rating for instance.

 

i doubt the "average joe" would know about these kinda sources and tests in the first place. however just like u can test drive a car, people should also make an attempt at trialing antiviruses and other software. tho i guess that would cause problems. and lastly i feel u discover more through personal use of a program than by just researching it, but both are necessary.

 

I found out about this site through a mainstream site PCmag and was not referred to it by any "geek guys" and I mean to use that term in a good way. I'm sure I am not the only one to have found my way here without help from anyone "in the field". Believe me I'm as average a Joe as your going to find.

 

do average Joes always visit Wilders and read PC Magazine?

 

They may start with PC mag at the begining and come across a link to some other sites such as Wilders as they attempt to learn more about computers and security. Especially if they watch the news like CNN where they recently devoted a lot of valuable air time to a trojan outbreak which downed a number of their computers at their headquarters in Atlanta.

 

As I am not very sharp in the area of computers, I do rely heavily on such tests. However, I am not wedded to them, and have been using Bit Defender, not V9.0, for several months.
It is a couple of percentage points below the top, but I accept that. I have been pleased with BD, and do not intend to change. However, if I had no good AV I would choose KAV, or possible NOD.

Using BD and Ewido along with LnS I have a high degree of confidence in my set up. If I were using a AV that scored in the low 90s I would change when my license ran out.

I recognize that some AVs do not run well with some combinations on a computer, and that would be the deciding factor. I have an impression that KAV is touchy in that way, but that is only an impression gained from reading problems here. I may be wrong.

Jerry

 

No plans to switch. It was just my attempt at a little humor

 

Andreas:

I've read your very informative document on testing procedures and FAQs. I know that your margin of error is < .1% and that one should not choose an AV only on the basis of detections percentages. I still have a question which you might choose to answer. Is there a level of difference in detection rates which you consider insignificant? In other words if product X has a 98% and product Y has a 98.3% rate (the difference is obviously outside the margin of error) is there any real world significance between the detection rates of the two products?

Thanks for your great work.

 

No, that is why the levels were introduced and why I say "Products belonging to a category can be considered to be as good as the other products in the same category regarding the on-demand detection rate." The exact numbers are firstly of interest for the AV companies and other experts, there were some ideas if in future the users should only see which levels were reached, like some other testing sites does, but personally I do not want to do that; I prefer to keep showing them and to try to explain the users how to interpret the results... even if I sometimes read in forums things that let me suppose that only few peoples read the whole report or the comments under the results.