Must say one of the most through and best documented lab test results I have seen in a while. And of course, Eset Smart Security is the highest scoring product in all categories. That's why I use it.
SE Labs = 8 products tested. Only.......... The AV-Comparatives = 19 products The AV-Test.org = 22 products PDF, Page 18= The products chosen for this test were selected by SE Labs https://selabs.uk/en/reports/consumers
Actually, it is not uncommon for AV Labs to limit vendor product selection in their unpaid tests for economic reasons. NSS Labs, Dennis Labs, and the like all do so for their consumer product tests. Products selected are usually the most widely used ones.
Bitdefender (BD engine is everywhere), Avira, F-Secure, Emsisoft, Fortinet, Tencent are not used widely?
An argument could be made that based on market share, Avira should have been included. As far as BitDefender, they are second from last in this market share analysis: http://www.statista.com/statistics/...eld-by-antivirus-vendors-for-windows-systems/ Since the test lab outfit is UK, they probably just picked software most widely used there perhaps.
"Free" nicely represented: "Avast Free Antivirus and MS Security Essentials, account for about one third of the antivirus protection products for Windows worldwide..." Third in the chart is MBAM Free (because if it don't say MBAM Premium, it's the Free one). I'm going to corner the fast food market by selling free hamburgers.
Yes, these omissions, very disappointing. But the report is engaging and the site worthy of bookmarking. To be precise, the "Bitdefender engine" ≠ Bitdefender AV, IS or TS.
The data from statista.com taken from OPSWAT https://www.opswat.com/resources/reports/anti-malware-vendor-encryption-product-november-2015 and data from OPSWAT are questionable https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/av-market-share-new-opswat-report.372925/#post-2454193 https://www.opswat.com/resources/re...ryption-product-november-2015#data-collection
In reality, "the powers to be" track security market share by revenue. They could care less about how many software licenses are issued per vendor.
Eset on top? Then the labs should rename its name from se to eset. Seriously, man, I think is time for me to create my own tests to make Windows Defender the winner over Kaspersky...
It should be noted that this AV lab also used a somewhat novel approach in determining its protection scores as noted below from the report: Rating calculations We calculate the protection ratings using the following formula: Protection rating = (2x number of Blocked) + (1x number of Neutralised) + (1x number of Complete remediation) + (-5x number of Compromised) The vendor products that scored the highest were the ones that blocked, neutralized, and fully remediated the malware threat. This means all traces of the malware were removed from the user's PC. Additionally, complete remediation implies that any system modifications done by the malware were fully reversed. Whereas in other AV lab methodologies, a product would not be penalized if malware traces were left as long as they were dormant and posed no threat. Or, if full remediation was not performed.
I don't understand why McAfee continues to get mediocre scores in nearly every test it participates in. Intel backs it, and Intel is a heavyweight when it comes to resources and experience. Why aren't they putting their weight into the product?
Nice looking test report. As an aside, Simon Edwards (SE) is the former technical director for Dennis Labs.
Thanks stephentony. I wasn't aware of that. I created a separate thread about it: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/dennis-labs-no-longer-operating.386391/
Looking into different press releases by Intel about McAfee they said they believe their investment should he noticeable this next product release cycle while they have been changing things behind the scenes the fall starts the noticeable change. Source: http://m.crn.com/news/security/3000...-onboard-with-the-new-strategy.htm?itc=hp_ots
