AV-test.org for Windows 8.1 April

http://www.av-test.org/en/home/?avtest[type]=3&avtest[platforms]=10-7&avtest[series]=10-7:1396310400.2


Kaspersky rocking as usual!

It's very nice to see that soooo many vendors scored 100% on Windows 8.1. It truly shows that Windows 8.1 is a big step forward security-wise.


EDIT: Here's the result for Corporations: http://www.av-test.org/en/home/?avt...tforms]=10-7&avtest[series]=10-7:1396310400.2

 

Thanks.

Looks normal I guess.

 

Thanks for sharing

 

Interesting.

It would have been better if they done the same test on Windows 7 too, to see the difference (if any) of the OS security.

 

Thanks shadek!

 

Vlk,you got to have a explaination for the avast results? Please could you evaluate the results and reason its low?

I would Appreciate an answer.Thanks a ton!

Oh also no wonder comodo is scoring poorly I checked their detection rates with Malware packs lately and it was far way poor.But I dont think with avast the same,they are scoring and doing well in my tests.Vlk please elaborate! They just improved over a half score from win7 test at AT-Test.

 

@shadek,
Thanks for the link!
Avira doing very well lately. Good to see.
Good job by Trend Micro. Would like to see Emsisoft in these tests.

 

pheew.... Avast bottom tier player... what a degradation....

 

Check the results from Feb too compare with

Qihoo 360 internet Security again 17,5 out of 18 points, just as previous test on Win 7 same points

 

This test is pretty bogus looking, especially the performance aspect.

Eset, and PandaCloud performing poorly? That's ridiculous, anyone knows and FEELS how little of an impact those have on a system. Also they ignored Avira's drastic boot performance issues - apparently..

 

Panda Free doing really good again. Don't know why I have yet to make the switch to it on the family computer. Suppose I keep waiting for Avast! to turn the corner. They will surely soon.

 

The samples of those tests would be different and so would many other factors such as the Windows Updates which have happened from February.

I agree with DoctorPC that this report looks a bit bogus regarding Eset and Panda since they rarely have an impact on the system and the CPU usage of them is very low. The RAM wouldn't have an affect on the system performance unless the memory was low.

I personally don't use these testing results to make a comparison but rather my own experience of the ones I have tried.

 

I find it fascinating to see Ahnlab scoring so consistent, always below Windows Defender, lol.
Strictly South-Korea oriented perhaps, with local issues and what not?
Anyway, what's the sample set used?

An average of 100000 malware samples a day link, a 4-week total of 2800000, gives a 0.74% sample set.
It better be extremely well chosen.

 

There is a huge difference between widespread and prevalent and created samples a day, so your calculation fails.

 

thumbs up for McAfee

 

They have improved in the last 6-9 months!!

 

funds from Intel are pouring I guess

 

Of course there is a difference, it depends upon how 'widespread' and 'prevalent' are defined.

 

Good Evening! Trjam...are you actually using McAfee...on your system? And how nimble and quick? Anyhow it's NSA...Approved. Lol! Sincerely...Securon

 

I can`t understand why Eset is so heavy on this test.

Lightest antivirus I have ever used.

 

Given how I am 'super picky' about how heavy an AV is, and I find ESET to be so light it's not even there - I agree. I think the test is rubbish and that's partly why.

 

What a cliche' such an answer has become, when results don't reflect a personal experience the whole test is deemed rubbish... It is true Avira might slow down booting (not dramatically on my system), but on the other hand during normal operation it is incredibly light even more so than MS native Windows Defender. I think as far as a test is concerned it is more important how an AV behaves during normal operation than to just focus on start up delays. Attached are the figures of the impact of Avira on my system at this very moment...
From the test description:
Performance
Average influence of the product on computer speed in daily usage
Use cases: visiting websites, downloading software, installing and running programs and copying data

 

Light and performance aren't the same thing, even a neophyte should know that. So my Eset (full suite) is using 94mb, and yours is using 55mb, how is that relevant to ANYTHING when I have 14.2GIGS free of ram? <boggle>

Startup delays should be considered, and in fact - should be a BIG consideration. I wait 12 seconds to be in my system, and working. When AVIRA is installed that exceeds 3-6+ MINUTES. Compounded over a year, that's a significant loss in productivity, much less a huge annoyance to clients. Clients blame me when they can go make a cup of tea while their machine boots, I look like I haven't built them a fast machine. It's unacceptable, and should murder Avira in any performance test that isn't nonsense.

Anyone that runs ESET on a reasonable machine knows it is simply unnoticeable on performance impacts, and any review/test that says otherwise I tend to question. Not because I don't agree with the results, but because I KNOW it's not accurate. Neophytes tend to overemphasize tests, while professionals tend to look at all aspects of a product, and make informed decisions. Of all of the other engineers, and IT professionals I know, I don't know a single one that reviews these kinds of tests. Why? We find what works, and we deploy it - and what works is largely defined by criteria that includes a while lot of different things - based off actual experience.

 

Well I’m sorry I don’t have your engineering skills, but usually scientifically minded people don’t dismiss tests as simply rubbish because they say so. Light and performance aren't the same thing, agreed, but in basic operations Avira seems to outperform Eset. Running Win 8 without Avira there is no change in speed with my computer, except a slight delay at start up.

I would like to point out that my system without AV boots in 12 seconds, but only to see the metro UI. It takes another 20 seconds to snap into normal operation, 60 seconds with Avira installed

This performance test hasn’t taken into consideration start up times which is something that should be added in the future perhaps, but it doesn’t necessarily make all other results dubious on this account.

I really wonder then, why a professional of your caliber is reading and posting on this forum…

 

lol!
This is your 3rd post on the present thread re test......not to mention your post on previous tests.