AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Tests for June 2017 & Feb – June 2017

According to av-comp, it has the highest impact of any AV program. https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/avc_per_201705_en.pdf

 

Not denying what we are both seeing in black and white. It's not like I have done benchmark tests or anything either. But for what I normally do on my machine not noticing anything crazy. If I did, would already be back to third party. Which I still might do anyway.

 

Yeah, if it is working for you no reason to drop it. I didn't like it because I saw it using a ton or resources, and it also kept giving me a warning that I had to scan my PC every few days. I never do on-demand scans with my AV. They have real-time protection. If I want to do an on-demand scan I will use Zemana or something similar.

 

They probably would, i'm not sure. It seems to me that Eset has sacrificed higher detection rates in order to have little to no false positives for a long time now. They usually have none in test results.

Yes, there exploit protection has been good. I think it could be better though if they added more mitigation techniques to their arsenal.

Yes, their detection has been lacking lately.

 

ESET (26/1955) x 100 = 1.3 % overall actual compromise rate. Within the context of typical computing that very small percentage is of virtually no consequence.

On average, a user would have to download 37.5 malicious files per week and ESET would miss 0.5 of those malicious files.

How many security soft geeks download 37.5 malicious files in a week ? None. That makes the 1.3 % statistically non-relevant - if you adhere to the law of averages.

The problem is users unrealistically expecting a 100 % detection\0 % failure rate 100 % of the time.

 

Yes, but users should expect to see results about the same as other comparable products. There's where the problem lies. It's not about the percentage rate alone. In other words you compare a product to how well the other products performed.

Edited 7/16/17 @ 6:07

 

I would bet a good portion of the 26 were of the same malware class. Detection rates are not static, but vary over time. Look back through the test history and you will see individual products' detection rates jump up-and-down.

In terms of actual computing, the only thing that matters is the overall failure rate. That's what people don't get or simply refuse to accept. Of course that is based upon the laws of averages. Some unlucky sod could theoretically download 10 files and each one could be malware that bypasses whatever solution they have installed.

 

Have you got a fast CPU? I've found WD can cause noticeable drops in performance at times, if you haven't got a fast CPU.

 

In regard to AV Lab tests, some folks might also not realize that the products are tested with default settings.

Whereas this might be applicable to MSE and WD which have no configurable settings in that regard, most other AV products have a wide array of settings that can be deployed; such settings as realtime scanning thoroughness and aggressiveness, boot scanning options, HIPS or behavior blocker increased detection features/settings, etc.. These settings are primarily not enabled to reduce false positives for which vendors are penalized with in the AV Lab tests.

 

That is a very fast processor. It's nearly three times faster than the i3 CPU in my fastest laptop.

 

Roger that. Maybe that is why I am not feeling a performance hit.

 

I don't know that WD will necessarily make anyones PC slow. But in my mind, it is a cumulative thing. If I use a handful of programs that are a bit on the heavy side, eventually there will be an impact. So I always keep an eye on what programs are using in terms of memory, cpu, disk, etc...

 

The general level of ignorance regarding AV lab tests is astounding - given the fact that the methodology is explained in the test reports. Looks to me like people just make IT security decisions based solely on pretty pictures.

 

A very fast processor with 16 GB RAM......

 

I have a i5 6600 , 16 GB ram and an ssd and I could still feel slowdowns with WD , so ymmv like any other antivirus

 

Did you use CCleaner with Windows Defender checkmarked?

 

Yes I didn't know that might as well go back and check my school grade of 8.6. About the fp factor--just my opinion that it should be sorted by red because then emsisoft wouldnt be that far behind despite the user dependency (their alerts are pretty assertive)

 

@anon lol! I know. My CPU is far from state of the art.

 

I may have. Does that increase WDs resource usage?

 

that is a 3rd generation i5, hardly any better than the latest i3's in most laptops.

 

If WD becomes good, probably many products will start to be "compatible" with WD like Zemana, Hitmanpro, MBAM, Webroot, etc.

 

It it substantially faster than the i3 in my main laptop.
According to CPU Benchmark, the i7 has a CPU Mark rating of 7,033, where as the i3 2310m in my main laptop has a rating of just 2,423.
So while I can't speak for others. I can only dream on one day having a computer that fast.

I have a 1st generation i5 in one of my laptops which has similar performance to the i3 in my main laptop. But, all my other computers have Core 2 Duo (or worse) processors.

 

CPU performance is overrated, when it comes to snappiness.
Most important is to have a decent SSD and at least 4GB RAM.

My eight years old Dell XPS M1330 (Core2-duo 2,40GHz/4GB) runs great, since I put in an EVO840