On-Demand Comparative August 2011

panda fanboy this week are you?I was only being a gentleman and agreeing with him

 

Bullguard AV 10 and AhnLab V3 results released in Single Test Reports.

 

Wonder why there's a difference of 1.5 between the results for PCAV & PIS. Surely repair should work the same in both products.

 

Shame on Symantec!

 

Excessive number of False positives are present even in RealWorld for Symantec.

 

never ever had any problems with FPs with NIS 2011,and in ALL previous tests they are amongst the best or even the very best on that score,am wondering if its not the definitions but the way the detection engine has been tweaked in 2012,but then again this test is using an "old"(if that is correct term for a new product?!)version of 2012

 

Just curious pbust. Why did PIS score better than PCAV? Although one is paid, and one is free, shouldn't the removal capabilities be the same for all Panda products?

 

I was wondering about that as well.

 

I queried this in post #103 too.

 

Yes you did. That's what I get for going to the end of the thread.

 

i really like panda is and would run it if somehow they could get it a bit lighter. it just always makes things crawl for me during scans and updates. i know some will not agree but thats okay i have a 2600k oc'ed to 5g with 8mb ram etc on this system and i can still feel it..

 

Z have you tried Panda Cloud. To me it is as light as the rest.

 

There's quite a bit of differences technically. None of them are on purpose (to for ex limit the capabilities of a free AV vs a paid AV).

To start off the agent architecture is completely new in Cloud Antivirus. This means that for example disinfection drivers are different too. Detection wise it's easier to be on par (even though the cloud-scanning backends are different also), but with disinfection there's still some work to be done to bring them both on par. For example with Cloud Antivirus we followed a different path for certain types of packed files which is treated differently in Panda IS.

 

Thanks for the explanation. It'll be good to see both products at the same level with disinfection as well as detection.

 

You should ask why they have asked to be left out of the retrospective tests.

The retrospective tests are regarded as one of the best indicators for how an antivirus will perform against zero-day threats.

Hint: Avast performed second last (beat even by K7!) in the November 2010 retrospective tests.

 

I feel vindicated moving to Panda Cloud Antivirus this year! I've been watching its performance over the years and started feeling that it's matured enough to use.

My main reason was that the pure file detections were pretty good and the program was fairly light. I didn't need a whole security suite, and my setup doesn't rely on the performance of the antivirus.

Originally there were a lot of false positives, mainly for security products I use - but now it is quite low. The computer is also very responsive, which was one of my requirements.

I've no idea how good it is at detected exploits and process injections and the like, but with series of sandboxes with appropriate restrictions then the risk of systemic infection is low anyway.