Just like Kaspersky and McAfee... this month it looks like every SW has scored very well, all of them got at least 4/6 points (except Panda on performance)
When I tested just about every antivirus there is a year ago, Panda was lighter than just about every other antivirus. Maybe this won't be the case for everyone. It is very important to try antiviruses yourself and reach your own conclusions, rather than believing the performance results from AV tests.
Yes, you are right, I was just commenting the scores. Sometimes AV-test is weird in their score... I remember once they gave 4 stars on Comodo about "Protection" only because of a low detection rate, even if it scored 100% in "Protection against 0-day malware attacks"
if Vipre improved their dynamic modules then it's a really good AV. used to do well on my malware tests except when malware could execute or used powershell Windows Defender scoring almost perfect, yea okay...
I find Panda Dome to be incredibly light as well, lighter and with less impact than any other AV I've used.
Seeing these results, I think the war with malware is now under control using any AV, adding other layers I can't see how one could possibly get infected unless you are willing to let it happen...
It's good to see Windows Defender is doing much better . I hope that Microsoft continues to make more improvements to it.
Most AVs use cloud technology which has considerably improved detection, some use Bitdefender's engine. I remember not so long ago, Ahnlab, AVG, McAfee, Microsoft, and Vipre to name a few were getting not more than 3 points at AVTEST. I tend to agree with roger-m that the only section that may be misleading in terms of results is 'performance' which may vary dramatically with different machines.
I stopped believing anything AV-Test had to say years ago, and this latest list is just backing my decision up.