AV-Comparatives: Whole Product Dynamic Test (2010)

=

Thanks for confirming this.

 

Hi,

As i've never seen uncontestable av tests, i will not discuss about the methodology.
Tests can be interesting from a consummering angle if we consider that they help in choosing the right product.
But regarding most av tests, are they really helpfull in making the right choice for the average user?
I would say no.
There is a very little difference between world av (Norton, kaspersky, McAffee etc), and this is not the level of % detection rate that helps in this choice.
Kingsoft is a regional AV, and its efficiency can't be compared to big av editors.
Instead of trying to show which av(s) is/are the most effective, would't be more insteresting for the test readers to avoid ineffective ones?
Many av have been released on the market these last years...
I personally never take into consideration av tests for choosing one (not a fan) or recommending one (BitDefender and Avira): detection rate is a dead end, then i focus more on which av is less vulnerable to evasion methods.

So IBK is there any chance for the average consummer to see more editors on the test list?

Rgds

 

Hi,

I'm afraid, I don't really understand what you mean.
You aren't a fan of choosing an av based on av-tests but you recommend BitDefender and Avira?
As they are the least vulnerable to evasion methods?

 

I base, to a large extent, my choices on the detection and blocking rates of AVs as tested. Otherwise I would just be pulling one out of the air. If the least percentages are important in the rejection of some, then the highest percentages are important in the choice of what to use.

If an AV runs well on my system, has a detection rate among the top percentages and at a reasonable cost, I go for it.

I greatly appreciate AV Comparatives tests, and the results greatly influence my choices.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Makes me wonder if AV-C will test AVG 2011 lineup in October. They were suppose to test any new versions that come out in between the tests. Probably a reason why AVG rushed the release now, to catch the October entry in AV-C. That's my prediction.

 

Any AV vendor should not rush to release a product just to be tested . The testing organisation could also test a BETA product if the AV vendors is sure the product is good enough and of course if they agree.

 

Still a bit to heavy on the PC and too much user interaction needed. Popups on top of popups. Very good AV though of you don't mind that.

 

No, the rushed release was for business reasons. Read the link provided in my earlier post

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1752211&postcount=106

(and sorry for possibly going off topic)

 

Have we discussed the new results :
http://av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests

LAST REVISED : 2nd November

702 test cases
Best results get : AVIRA , Symantec , AVG , Kaspersky (in this order)

Worst results : Panda , Kingsoft , PC-Tools and Norman are with less than 95%

 

Nice to know. .

Thanks.

 

i wish avg would get their stuff together with issues overall because they really seem to be doing very well. i have many lic's to the program but i dont use it due to recent bsod's among other things

 

The report issued on November 2nd states “The exact data... can be found on http://www.av-comparatives.org" (page 7). However, I do not see a link on the AV-Comparatives website to download the “exact data.” Am I missing it?

Edit: URL link

 

your link is not working Pleonasm

 

The PDF document has been revised, but I see no data for October included therein.

 

It is good to see avira doing so great with the default settings. I know that on the ondemand test avira ask the get heuristics set to high, but at this test it is the default setting. It shows that avira is a incredible good AV.

It also shows that using any of these products you will be protected as good as you need. I seriously dont belive that any normal surfer will run into 1000 viruses or visit sites where they will get in contact with such an amount in 1 month.

Maybe the world(of internet) is not so bad after all.

YNWA

 

Have a look at page 7 - the data for September is the one because the test was conducted in September and perhaps should have been posted in October , but it was revised in November

 

This is Avira's strength: it may not be the best performer in every test, but it is always up there among the best. Some people here at Wilders have tried to even undermine the credibility and integrity of their management conjuring up a spyware plot within the program, which turned out to be hot air.

The ProActiv module still leaves a lot to be desired, but overall the program is working as advertised. Good work Avira.

 

I really don't think you have tried F-Secure lately. F-Secure Internet Security 2011 is light compared to even AVIRA which I have been using for many years. Pop ups are negllible as they have white listed known programs. I called them cos I couldn't understand why so few pop-ups and thats what they told me. I have been using F-Secure for a couple of weeks and am very impressed

 

October results published:

http://av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/dynamic-tests

 

In addition to previous comments on F-Secure by others an myself, the following:

F-Secure proofs again (October results) it is superior to BitDefender in every single way, although they are using the same engine. Their inhouse technologies should therefore be great, especially DeepGuard which keeps improving and improving (version 3 now: behavior-based detection with improving whitelists and a smarter cloud now (reputation-based).
Superior in every single way:
- detection;
- stability/bugs;
- performance effects;
- GUI;
- and a great option, in my opinion: the opportunity to install IS without Parental Control.

 

Wow Kingsoft did improve A lot with their 2011 version, but still not good enough

 

Finally avast beats avira ... f secure is doing better and better..eset degrading...symantec still on top..consistent perfoarmance by kaspersky..

 

I don't know why are all so disapointed by avast!. If you look closely it had the most consistent scores. Never below 95%. Where others fluctuate in big leaps above 9% and faaaaaaar below it. Fluctuations are bad. Consistency is good.

 

I agree. avast! has been consistent with the protection it provides ~95%, which is not a bad score, at all.
AVG on the other hand, with version 10, is not that stronger, way below avast!. I guess that with version 10 they are depending too much on Identity Protection, at least according to some users who have been testing it against malware. They really need to reconsider this approach.

 

I must take note that AV-C's dynamic tests are truly superb -- professionally structured, thoroughly explained, sampling sizes discussed, easy to read & understand.