AV-Test.org: October 2016 Test Results

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by LagerX, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. LagerX

    LagerX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Posts:
    565
  2. Secondmineboy

    Secondmineboy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Posts:
    102
    Location:
    Germany
    Great to see Avast with full 6 points :)
     
  3. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,787
    But why so slow. Is this not the "Nitro" version yet?

    Also, Qihoo got dropped again. More cheating, or some other issue?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016
  4. Secondmineboy

    Secondmineboy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Posts:
    102
    Location:
    Germany
    No idea there doesnt seem to be any info on the version.
     
  5. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    Respectfully, Microsoft's stuff should just slip quietly and casually into the sunset.
     
  6. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,787
    I believe the argument is that Defender is built to run with Smart Screen, but the testing services turn Smart Screen off. Otherwise Defender would perform better.

    I don't personally use Defender, and have not in over 5 years, but it sounds like the testing may be skewed in a way that it looks worse than it is.
     
  7. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    OK, I see. However, Microsoft, with its mega mega-corporation status, has tentacles all over the place, perhaps not enough of its prodigious resources are channeled into anti-virus technologies. Fine, there are great software firms devoted strictly to security software. It is time to put this doddering anachronism to rest, it's simply not competitive any more. And yes, I have Windows security--once my various subscriptions are up, poof, gone.
     
  8. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,787
    Sure, but understand if MS did focus more on Defender and made it a awesome solution, all the 3rd party AV companies would complain and try to sue for antitrust. Look at all the issues MS has had with Explorer, especially in places like Europe where they are always trying to squeeze American companies for money.
     
  9. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    That's already happening with Eugene Kaspersky's company filing complaints with competition authorities in the EU and Russia as discussed in this thread. A number of other AV companies are supporting Kaspersky's stance on the matter.
     
  10. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    500
    I disagree completely. While I wouldn't use MS' solutions for myself, think about how many computer illiterate people are out there who have no idea you even NEED an Antivirus, or any security measure for that matter? Heck, I used to work for comcast and went door to door. Looking at customer computers that had whatever free trial came with the computer, and had expired 3-4 years prior. So, as Microsoft claimed years ago, they're there to be a baseline. They never inteded it to be the best, but at least it's "something".

    Personally, I'd rather see MS put in a pop-up upon a fresh install. "You need computer security to protect from X. If you don't have one, please choose one from the following free services" with links to Avast, Avira, AVG, etc etc. The usual free suspects.
     
  11. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    8,625
    Location:
    USA
    I'm expecting to see that anyway.
     
  12. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    Look, for a brief moment in time, I was positive about Defender, it somehow managed to get into the "average" category. Very very briefly. Look how MS markets Windows Defender:

    MS defender marketing.PNG
    I sure don't want to twist this around into another Microsoft slam-fest (again, lol!) but MS should be careful not to lull Mr/Ms Average User into a false sense of security with its comparatively poor-performing product. Defender is not competitive apparently, bully-boy anti-trust laws or no. But yeah, it's better than nothing.
     
  13. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,787
    This is the whole point of Defender. For the masses, that know little about AV, it provides a baseline of protection. No, it's not perfect, but way way way better than using nothing at all. And it leaves room for Eugene K. to market his product.
     
  14. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    500
    Markets it where? On the Defender website? The people who don't know enough to think they need an AV aren't going on the Defender website. They're going to www.GrandmasforwardingchainletterswithHamstergifs.com/totallynotavirus.exe
     
  15. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    If you put a "baseline" Chevy sedan into the same competitive arena as a BMW sedan, same "stuff" and the Chevy scores poorly relative to the Bim, well that's not fair, is it? OK so if Defender is painted into a corner in terms of its station in computer life, then, it should not be marketed as a contender in the antivirus big league, even though technically, that's what it is. That's your terminology, it's a baseline safety net. Yet it is in the same environment as K or Bitdefender. I wish someone would do an expose on the grimy cut-throat competitive underworld life of antivirus firms --I generally question some of these labs and their findings. Anything going on under the table?--sure!

    I'd like to think this is the extreme end of the bell curve, not the majority.
     
  16. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Yeah, those pesky Europeans always squeezing for money lol.
     
  17. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,424
    Location:
    Dubai
    Guys how come ESET gets mid performance test results here while on AV-C it is ranked number 2? this is a huge difference! How do these guys test?
     
  18. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    500
    Papusan, I tend not to trust these tests, the performance values are WAY off to me. AV-Test has always seemed wildly inaccurate to me.

    I'd like to think that too. But when you visit strangers' houses and work on their computers, you see some awful, awful security habits. Hell, most people leave their wifi unsecured and open. It's silly.
     
  19. khanyash

    khanyash Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    2,428
    I am running KIS 2017 & performance mentioned matches with my system here i.e KIS 2017 is light with everything here as mentioned in the test details.

    I have AIS license & thinking of installing it on one of my systems here, is Avast performance really that heavy as mentioned in the test details?
     
  20. Solarlynx

    Solarlynx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    Posts:
    2,015
    Hmm, they equalized Comodo and Defender in "Protection". Then they should call this column "Detection" as with respect to protection against 0-day malware attacks Comodo shows 100% in their tests.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  21. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    Hahaha :)!

    Software for the masses is malware. Ransomware! I agree about rigged AV tests--there are so few genuine "white hats" that I wonder if they really exist in the wild, only in captivity. But that's for another thread......
     
  22. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    8,625
    Location:
    USA
    It probably depends on how heavily they weigh the browsing slowdown. I just uninstalled it for that reason. Otherwise it runs great.
     
  23. phyniks

    phyniks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Posts:
    258
    Protection ratings can be true,but I m not sure about the results on performance
     
  24. bigwrench9

    bigwrench9 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Posts:
    148
    I havd the same experience with ESET on Win10. Now mind you, it runs fine and lighter on Win7. Have tested MANY for performance on Win10, and I'm more than pleased with Norton, just the AV. (the AV test seems to confirm this, as compared to win7)
     
  25. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,254
    Location:
    Texas
    They used Win 10....I may faint. Like some others, performance seems questionable but it may be my personal experience with an older pc.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.