AV Comparatives File Detection test for September 2014

http://www.av-comparatives.org/detection-test/

ALso real world is out today:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

 

Thanks, nine!

 

Avira has really stepped it up lately. Excellent job !

 

Thanks for sharing. Nice results from some top AVs.

 

More and more I wonder if there is any reason to run anything other than Panda Free or Qihoo. They are both free, light weight, and near perfect protection.

I'd throw Avira in there with them, but it seems the services only ever test the Pro version, so I have no clue how the free version actually performs.

 

@clocks
I agree, ATM those three are showing best performance for free AV and also performs better than some paid AVs.

 

Also here =

File Detection Test September 2014
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart1&year=2014&month=9&sort=1&zoom=3

Real-World Protection Test September 2014
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2014&month=9&sort=1&zoom=3

Avast: 95,8%............
McAfee: 94.7%.........

 

It also got 120 FPs in file detection test.

 

Seems detection was down a little across board. Something on malware front cause it, or just random?

 

Avast! crazy-many FPS, lol. That coupled with a sub-par score, makes me wonder what the heck is going on.

Also, 80.4% base protection from Microsoft is sad.

 

One time weird results and everyone running around with hands in the air. The rest of the years, avast! was among the ones with no or least FP's. Clearly this number was a temporal glitch that has probably been fixed already. Evo-Gen are machine generated signatures.

 

WOW Trend is smoking - as I predicted.

 

Too many FPs. And their support stinks.

 

Purely opinions on support, nothing more. But...

5 FP's on Real World Protection test, with the only product in the world scoring 100%?

 

If Trend is so great, you wouldn't have to keep boasting about it.

 

i kinda of had the same thought. why use norton is you like trend so much (or work for them or ) not trying to be rude at all im honestly curious.

 

For the simple reason my Router has Trend (ASUS RT-AC87). It wouldn't make sense to have a second layer of protection that's virtually identical to my first layer. Over the last year I used Trend 2015 (Alpha+Beta), but I had a different UTM appliance in use at that time. If I didn't have Trend's UTM solution deployed I wouldn't even consider running anything else on my desktops.

Common sense to not stack the same solutions.

 

I'm shocked on the amount of false positives and "just average" detection of F-Secure ("real-world" test).

 

F-Secure is a very traditional AV. In my opinion traditional AV's will continue to decline in performance. Without leveraging millions of dollars in servers, enterprise structures, cloud/hosted, and virtualization technologies these guys won't be keeping up. Trend went from average to below average to top almost overnight due to new technologies that can adapt to the rapidly changing situation.

 

Yeah, what happened to F-Secure?

 

Too many FPs for TM?
=>
File Detection: 5 FPs
Real-World Protection: 5 FPs

False Alarm Test - September 2014
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart6&year=2014&month=9&sort=1

 

Good question

 

In File Detection test. But in Real-World Protection test was only 5.

 

The "compromized" is the same as the previous months.
Sept: 0.7 / Aug: 0.7 / July: 1.0 / June: 1.5 / May: 0.6 / April: 0.8 / March: 0.9

 

Results are pretty much the same for all players as in the last 6 months, except for FPs which are exceedingly high for some companies who usually score well in this area. It would have been interesting to see how the "new" Norton tested in this environment...