To date Malwarebytes has never really been a universal solution, more a companion to be added to a more standard AV, so it is a bit surprising to see it in this type of test. There is a lot of intellectual horse power in this company so maybe they are looking to widen their gaze against more attack vectors, if so it will be interesting to see where they are in six months time.
From the Malwarebytes article post #7 Still wishful thinking, Malwarebytes states they are better in the real world than in tests, but where is the evidence? Microsoft used to say the same thing about Windows Defender in the past, but nowadays WD is among the best in AVs tests...
The thing is, anti-malware tools should be able to block malware, no matter how it's executed, so there really is no excuse. For example, if malware is executed via exploit, then MBAM will probably do good, but not because it recognized the malware, but because it recognized the exploitation technique. And if you can not identify malware on execute, then you should be able to at least interfere with suspicious behavior after malware is already active in memory. I'm not sure if this is tested.