Anyone notice something strange in the awards? Windows Defender actually scored pretty good, an 84, but was not given any award ranking?
Yes, Windows Defender did very good. It actually did better then all other vendors in the Advanced category. And just 2 points more, it would had been in the Advanced+ category. Seems a bit juvenile to then not include it in the awards.
FYI. At the bottom of Page 9 of the PDF, it states: "Microsoft Windows Defender was tested out-of-competition and is therefore not included in the awards page. The score of Microsoft Windows Defender would be equivalent to ADVANCED."
Yes, I'm well aware of that and I'm sure I have stated before how I feel about the current state of testing that are done and presented by the various testing organizations. The juvenile relates to the fact, the when these test show certain products to do less, then it gets a lot of focus in the reports. And when same products do well, then its something we don't see so much mentioned about. These tests are marketing tools, so it's not surprising - but still worth making a note of.
Thanks for sharing. Although I would never trust an AV to clean up already infected computer it is nice to know which Avs are more successful at it.
avast! is second best. Now they just have to crank up pure detection. It's really the only thing where they slightly lack.
I agree. It is useful to pick Kaspersky's trial period to clean up a heavily infected machine whereby Windows can't be re-installed or has no backup images, but on a clean system, excellent detection and common sense should make sure that the system doesn't get infected in the first place.
Panda's results seem to be consistently rather tepid in this area unfortunately. Competitive, yes; but never a top-tier performer where removal is concerned.
I think Panda has never added great detection to main program's scan engine (real time protection is another story) as I've seen numerous times how it fails to detect PUPs whereas Panda Cloud Cleaner detected them.
