AV-Comparatives (February 2009)

Avira rules again in detection rates, but still it gets a little bit more FPs then Av-comparatives.org taste.

 

I have used Avira for three years and had no FPs. My only concern is detection. The tester is free to set any criteria they want. For novice users, FPs are of course a consideration.

 

So when I read and understand well, for experienced users not?

<S>

 

Which two engines does G-Data use?

 

Avast and BitDefender.

 

keep in mind this test was made using the old version, Avira 8, imagine with Avira 9's improvements what the detection would have been... 99.99%? lol

 

Um, it was the old version of nearly every AV, so there's no injustice there.

 

was it? only ones i see are AVG's old version, Avira's, ESET. im not sure about some of the lesser known AV's (and im not counting minor updates, i mean major updates in versions)

 

As far as I see, pretty much anything that was released this year, which would make sense since the actual testing was done a while ago.

 

I was planning to ditch McAfee, and I still am.

But I'm surpised to see how well they performed, a very high detection rate plus few false positives. That's hard to beat. If I recall, Norton didn't perform bad either, but because of their 'issues' it's off the table.

One thing about the test: all (except Sophos) heuristics were set to high. I'm sure there is a reason why Kaspersky's heuristics' default is low !

Too bad VIPRE wasn't included ! How can we make up our mind about this product ?

I don't know about Eset, when I go to their website I'm redirected to a 'local' website, and for as far as I know, Eset Smart Security isn't even offered. Not exactly encouraging.

That leaves me with the difficult choice about which AV to pick.
Or to choose a non-signature based approach, which has its drawbacks.

 

btw symantec is Norton and it ranked top

I have the kaspersky heristics on high for all modules and its fine.
higher heristics use more resourses hence why low is the default.

 

Although avira & gdata achieved phenomenal detection rates (real winners IMO) they were penalized because of their relatively 'high' number of false positives and this time they couldn't get the highly desired 'Advance +' award.

Let's see, the fp's were only 24 & 44 for avira & gdata respectively, over a test bed of 1.3 million of malware samples. Then again, the limit of fp's to achieve the '+' certification was 15. If you get 16 o more you are fried....even if you've reached over 99% of detection!!! OMG

Well, rules are rules. I guess IBK got bored lately with the avira & gdata's numerous awards all over the world and changed a bit his rules for this season (although it was announced in advance, i think)

Anyway, congratulations to the new holders of the precious 'advanced +' prize

As for me, you keep giving me Avira anyday

 

Sharpening rules isn't always bad, and can be even recommendable, this for several reasons.

 

To please other contenders and help them to raise their sales, for example?

 

Norton came out best this time, it scored high, it scanned fast and it had low false positives, all with the default settings. Avira achieved 99.7%, but did so with high FP and non-default settings, I don't understand why they're so eager to be tested at settings they're not happy shipping with.

McAfee did damn well though, wonder if that's due to their Internet submission system? EDIT: It looks like it is, 95.something% without.

Oddly, I'm disappointed by ESET, their detection is up but throughput has taken a nosedive. Kinda wishing I'd gone with Norton 2009 instead.

I look forward to seeing some reports from av-comparatives which cover the full range of malware, including spyware.

 

Solely in interest of the user. BTW, IBK isn't "purchasable".

 

Great test. Surprised by McAfee's results.
I'm sure this will help the competition...Avira is time to drop the FPs.

 

I know. I'm just trying myself putting on other contender's shoes. No offense intended.

 

*MOSTLY* not.

There is (of course) some number of FPs that would make an AV of questionable utility, no matter HOW high its detection rate. On the other hand, downgrading an AV that had less than 2 dozen FPs, but with over 99% detection for a sample of 1.3 million nasties, is to me very questionable.

Umm... you read minds? Otherwise, it's merely an opinion. (In my opinion, your opinion is correct.)

 

I would like people to pay special attention to the results of eScan in this test: The new version 10 appears to be using BitDefender engine

The overall scores are the same for both products with either having an edge in some categories. However, it is curious to notice that eScan has had less false positives in this test than BitDefender. Apparently the packer-based detections (Morphine packer) were absent in eScan. Can anyone comment about that?

Also, kudos to Kingsoft for taking the challenge and appearing in AV-comparatives; their score is not bad for a first time entry. I hope their product gets better over time

 

It may be because avira excels at heuristic protection and they wanted to achieve the maximum detection possible of malware, even risking of getting more fp's.

 

What I'd really like to see is a comparative of NIS2009 and Avira Internet Security 9.
If it is possible to test a suite, these two should go head to head.
Hugger

 

According to the test documentation, Avira wasn't the only company that requested that there program be tested with higher settings than the default settings.

 

Kaspersky wanted to be tested with higher than default settings too I think.

 

Yep. Kaspersky was one.