PC World AV Chart

AV's are always debated hottly. I'm not as keen on looking for data as most of you. I think the main thing these tests are good for is helping the developers in identifying and quantifying bugs and unexpected weakness. For the consumer they verify that the features claimed by vendor are legitimate.

That said, I am surprised by a lot of statements I've heard. Things like surprise of NAV's detection. It has always been outstanding in this regard - this is nothing new! It has had serious problems that it has had in the past with compatibility, worse and more problems with removing it from a system, a questionable signature update policy, and a record with regard to activation that is nothing less than a disgrace. I used it for years because its detection has always been great. I am not aware that it ever been a high resource user. In my opinion it is not worth considering so goodbye number 2.

Bit Defender (which I have used) has always seemed too slow to be even considered! I don't know about the rest of you, but I could never live with that. "Known bug...there working on it..." if it was ten times faster it would still be too slow if these figures are to be believed. Because I cannot spare the resources it demands I don't think I'd choose BD over even NAV! So long number 3.

"...surprised AVG did so good..." It has always been a fairly solid performer. I have used it extensively due to the fact that it is very light and does a very credible job!

"...System slowdown is least important..."
That would be true if I have a very fast computer, and did not do much on it that requires a lot of processor usage. Anything but true for me. This is actually closer to the most important figure IMHO. If overhead is more than double of NOD32 I would not be very likely to use it for long!

"....Kaspersky is number 1 so the test must be valid..." Well, I agree to the extent that if it were number 8 it would pretty much prove the test has no value. I believe 2 or 3, but that's about it

"...NOD32 going downhill" interesting what firecat said about decisions being made on what to include in the signature base and the effect on performance. What do YOU do if you make an AV? Do you include worthless signatures solely so it does well by detecting non-threat junk and scores well in tests. Personally I like NOD32, and that is what I've been using for some time.

So, to wrap it up we are left with:

Kaspersky and NOD32 as the top two worth considering. I'm no expert. I have used 7 out of the 8 AV's fairly extensively. My experience would have my qualitative ranking as

1 NOD32
2 Kasperky
3 AVG

(I don't see any reason to look beyond these three)

The fact that NOD32 did not score in the top four make me question the usefulness of this test as a meaningful criterion for choosing an AV. I don't doubt the test does measure what it measures, and gives some interesting feedback. But if a man on the streets walked up to me and said "Kaspersky, NAV, BD, then NOD32", Then I'd just smile and walk away!

There you have it! Don't bother asking, I am not ranking them mainly with numbers, rather, I am ranking them by how they seem to work in my experience, and a little on commonly known strengths and weaknesses. In other words, these are just my preferences.

- HandsOff

 

i think someone who knows them should ask them to test drweb

or rather still, wait till 4.44 is released from beta and then get it tested, although i dont care much for these 'test results' as it labels good vs bad, im still interested to see how it would compare in this such test.

 

The fact of the matter is that if Dr. Web fared well in any credible AV tests you'd care a lot more than you do now. You're obviously a loyal customer who goes out of their way to promote their product. There's nothing wrong with that by any means since everyone needs a fanboi.

If everyone learned to use a limited account with a disallowed by default software restriction policy the world would be a better place. Then again we wouldn't have all of these interesting independent reviews to look at now would we?

 

just because i dont look at these results and think,wow... i might have to give that a try, does not mean i would not like to see a review of the software.

no matter where you look on the net reviews of AV products seem to be norton/mcafee/kaspersky/nod/panda etc.

i dont think its too much to ask for a review of the little doctor, one of the pc mags or something... just a review is all.