KAV leads independent tests

Russian solution leads independent tests by the Spanish IT publication
Computer Hoy

The February edition of Computer Hoy, a Spanish IT publication
specialising in testing the consumer qualities of hardware and software,
included comparative testing of the antivirus products most popular on
the Spanish market. Kaspersky Anti-Virus 4.5 received the highest
rating and was named 'Best Quality Product'.

The Kaspersky Labs' product performed significantly better than Panda
Titanium Antivirus 2004, Panda Platinum Internet Security, McAfee
Internet Security Suite 2004 v. 6.0, Norton Internet Security 2004,
BitDefender Professional v. 7.1, NOD32 2.0, SP Antivirus, Norman
Internet Control, AVG Antivirus 7.0 Professional and eTrust EZ Armor
Security Suite, all of which were also tested.

Products were tested in a wide range of areas, all of which reflected
what a consumer looks for in a product. Among the criteria tested were
ease of installation and use, effective detection of malicious code, the
range and quality of services offered (e.g. multi-lingual technical
support) and the frequency with which antivirus database updates are
released, including reaction time to new threats. The opinion of
end-users - readers of Computer Hoy - played a significant part in
determining the final results.

Overall, Kaspersky Anti-Virus received the highest marks in each
category and was therefore placed first by Computer Hoy. In naming the
solution 'Best Quality Product' the reviewers stressed that 'Kaspersky
Anti-Virus beat out the competition in detecting and neutralizing
viruses. We recommend it to our readers as the fastest-acting, most
reliable and effective antivirus.'

 

To gain some further truth to this matter take a look at this link.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/ click on the comparitives menu item then the Feb 2004 test results.

not looking for any WMD anywhere.

 

So, Paul,

I'm waiting for an answer about last post linked to this independent AV comparative. What is your opinion. I'm very oriented about what you'll say because I know almost all peoples here likes NOD. Now I have NOD, I had fsav but I'm oscillating to install KAV. Generally talking, russians are one of the most intelligent peoples, so is possible to have a fine surprize. But let me know your opinion first.

 

U just scrap any comparative which did not describe the test procedure and did not state what was tested (eg. living viruses)....
Anyway what does mean "independent" ?

 

Is the only test series that holds weight in this forum the VB100?(is that because NOD always does well in it?) dont forget all tests, testers(even AV software vendors)are unknown and untrusted until they get established(remember how nod was first received by CNET:-something that has been proven wrong time and again!)
The more "independent" tests that are used can only in the long run lead to a more accurate picture of which products perform best,poorly performed ormanipulated tests will be seen as that and will fall by the wayside.In my view vendors should be kept in the dark in respect of
1)when tests are going to be performed(something the VB100 tests dont do!)which would prevent a rush of definition updates just in time for a known test date
2)viruses,trojans etc that are going to be used
(After all malware writers dont give warning of release dates and what they are going to release!)
Only if the AV vendors are kept in the dark can you discover which are performing best.
Can you imagine the reactions of vendors if the first they knew of tests was the publication of the results!

 

I never get tired of the AV pissing contests! As always, it boils down to how you use your system. If you just use email, almost anything is good enough. If you use P2P, newsgroups, and other stuff like that, you'd better use KAV or something in its class. I've found too many trojans that KAV detects which NOD32 and PC-cillin do not to think otherwise. (And please don't tell me that anti-virus utilities have no business detecting trojans; we've all heard that line of crap before.)