AV-Test July / August 2014

First you wrote:

Here is the chart from best to worst =
http://i.imgur.com/MjWNtF1.png
-------------------------
Now you are saying something else =

So, make up your mind.......
-------------------------

Cited=

 

You are looking at circles which are all 3.5, but scores aren't the same and that's where avast! pulls a bit ahead. I'm thinking just fine, you're looking at the wrong scores... Look at actual percentage and false positives and not just circles...

 

Whatever you say.............

 

Well if you don't bother to look at actual percentages and not just circles and half circles then i don't care about your opinions either.

 

If you consider just protection scores, Avast is on pair with AVG, Vipre and Ahnlab (3.5/6.0). But if consider also the other two parameters, Avast is a bit ahead (best performance and usability).
That said, however you interpret the chart, the results are still mediocre.

 

Cited

 

Qihoo 360 IS version 5.0 has been tested, so must be the chinese version and not like before the international is only at v4.9

 

Correct. I wonder why they don't submit the Total Security. Maybe because it would get worse result?

 

So the question has to be what is the differentiating factor that distinguishes their testing system and yours for them to say KIS is 'light'?

 

Sorting according the assumption that "in the wild" poses a bigger risk as "0-day", Avast is the worse of the free AV's, when you value 0-day of more importance AVG is the worse of the free AV's tested.

 

I wish they would test 360TS instead of 360IS, since 360TS is the future.

Also, I always wonder how Avira free would score on this compared to paid.

 

+1

 

could be a lot of factors. just like look at some of the other tests where kis does not come in first place..... not just mine.

 

This is what you call "Incomplete Information" for clever marketing! Zone Alarm compared the effectiveness of its product over free antivirus using August 2014 test on Windows 7. But they mentioned only Avast and Avira, not Panda.
http://www.zonealarm.com/blog/2014/10/is-your-free-antivirus-really-protecting-you/

 

Avast! did poorly again.What's the excuse this time Developers? What in the heck is happening with their scores at such places?

COMODO made a huge come back and other free products did great which is a pleasing side.I agree with garett76 comment.Everything these type of tests shows seems to be like a drop in the bucket considering 50,000+ new malware coming everyday.

 

Funny, not only they compare their paid product with free products, which is unfair by itself, but they also choose the only two free antivirus that scored lower.

 

But they mentioned only Avast and Avira, AVG

The comparison between ZoneAlarm, Avast, and AVG

 

Just a marketing campaign not really surprising... not to defend them and to be fair they do say that they took the most widely diffused vendors i.e. AVG and AVAST. That is indeed what I see when I go around and fix infected PC, 90% of the times if they use a free AV is either AVG or AVAST (not Panda or Avira).

 

I thought from your previous posts and sources we were up to 450,000 a day... Today in my work place I plugged in around 30 third party flash drives, and not one single instance of malware... 5 years ago they were all infected... I think MS is doing a good job after all!

 

I hate it when companies present data in a misleading manner in their marketing efforts. Stupid selection bias is not the way to go. Sure, you might trick those who do not know better but you are insulting the intelligence of those who do.

What they should have done is to highlight areas where they excel without making unfair comparisons. It is a gentler approach and respects the readers. Marketing does not have to be dirty.

You don't win the hearts of many by comparing yourself to only those who are lesser than you. You win by showing that you are good enough if not the best in what you do, regardless of the competition.

 

@safeguy
Well said!

Sorry...

Their response to my comment.

 

What's even worse, they compare both to their paid version. ZoneAlarm free version is for sure crap. Missing features and their moronic one update check per 24 hours is a massive dealbreaker, yet such products still score great even though they just shouldn't, because it always has a 24 gap of no updates. Which also shows to me that tests have to be flawed badly for not showing this even though they say they are "zero hour" and "proactive" tests...

 

Never saw these results.
Thanks for the update.