New Real World Test AV Comparatives results are out!

Don't know why AhnLab is tested. They did poorly last year and aren't doing any better this year.

 

@Fabian;

if i am using Bitdefender/F-secure/or other BD based av

F-secure=BD+Their own engine+more
Emsisoft =BD+Their own engine+more

Both have BD engine and this is unnecessary.

360 IS has selective engine option. we can on/off engines. Will you add this option to emsisoft?

so maybe BD/F-secure users can disable BD engines and maybe performance will better

 

For starters, the AV-Compartives product tested was Bitdefender IS not Bitdefender AV+. This explains to me the auto block difference between the scores shown for Bitdefender and Emsisoft I was somewhat puzzeled about. I assume they were using the WIN 7 x64 SP1 firewall when they ran the Emmisoft test? Also they tested EAM 7; not the latest 8.0 version.

And then AV-Comparatives throws in their to be expected digs against MSE being the baseline whereas it had no business being compared against IS software. Ditto for Avast. If your going to test IS software, make sure all products are IS software. I am not a big fan of AV-Comparatives. A "bush league" outfit in my opinion.

 

I couldn't agree more. Assuming no ethical issues, I have to question the care they take in post infection system analysis.

 

#3:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2258487&postcount=3

.

 

Looks like AVG needs to get rid of user-dependence for detection.

Avast! doing very well as expected.

 

Is an Avast and Panda request, they want free version been tested, others have the opposite opinion even whith a free version available (Avira, AVG)

 

I agree with itman.This is another strange result in my opinion.

Mcafee and escan never reached that high a score and I have never been too impressed with their products.Kind of looks like AV-C is impressed with the amount of money they have LOL

Rather Avira performed too badly which I cant accept atleast here.Still though,a test is a test.Cant help it!

Trend Micro- Hmmm..I guess those many blocks where a majority of their web guard.Not impressive at all.

I think avast score was balanced and it did very well though I expect better performance and I am still waiting for the upcoming new technologies to get in action.

But again,money oriented or not is the question.But as I said,test is a test.

 

=
Stefan Kurtzhals / AV Expert:
Re: AV-C Whole Product Dynamic Test Results - May 2013
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2013&month=5&sort=1&zoom=3

........

 

No. The reason is, that our engine is optimized around the presence of the BitDefender engine. If we just disable the BitDefender engine, you would need to download a whole different set of signatures, that also includes signatures that we disabled as the malware they detect is already covered by BitDefender.

 

you mean "emsisoft has more signature but you delete them. because BD engine already dedect this samples."
but there is no conflict because BD/F-secure/Gdata user already has bitdefender engine. They just need your additional engine.

You delete some emsisoft signatures, because BD engine dedect already.
Bitdefender for example. It has its own BD signature already. (it is true for other BD based software)
So what is problem? Sory i cant understand, just asking.

 

The problem is, that we have no idea about how they integrate the engine, what settings they use etc.. We would need to know that to safely allow a user to disable the BitDefender engine in our product.

 

I would be so happy to see how trend micro performs without its webshield (I really know without it we would see a big and beautifull red bar).

 

I guess you are one of those who dont prefer these tests even though when they are close to real life,so why are you here

 

Close to real life yes, but why do they develop an antivirus with all tech with it when they clearly only rely on their webshield ? ...

 

This is wrong.Obviously since AV testing organizations test 1 full AV product with 1000's of links no products web guard will do 100% so there is going to be a considerable amount of behavioural etc and sig detections.So that is a wrong notion in your mind.

All modules of a product will be equally tested along with sigs and additional features.

 

it is more clear now. thanks.

 

That's what i thought. I am currently testing McAfee Security Center Beta (it's not named '2014', but that's basically what it is) so following with interest how McAfee performing in tests month to month. A poor result in the recent Dennis Tech test, but that may go to show McAfee fine on Win7 but some problem on WinXP.

 

Not sure i understand why you would disable a protection module (eg 'web shield') to see how good the AV 'really is'? Isn't that like taking the seat belt out of a car and driving the wrong way up the freeway/motorway to 'see how good the car really is'? Web shield is there for a reason aliong with the other elements of protection. Why disable certain components for a test? There may be a good reason for testing this way, but i'm not sure i understand why. 'Default' settings seems best starting point for me for replicating 'real world'.

 

i would like see another baseline indicator...

Win 8 + smart screen enabled...

 

I agree 100 percent.

 

That's March to June, if one wants to see the June results only then you need to chose that in the menu.

 

AS far as I know it is not going to be discontinued. Did someone tell you it was being discontinued?

 

I for one hope there is always a choice to use Online Armor with your AV of choice. Not that there's anything wrong with EAM. I'm a long time user of OA, and it might be a deal breaker for me if I have to install the complete suite to use OA. Also, I don't like products that install portions of the GUI for other products they offer along with their Firewall or AV.

 

Welcome back!