Test discrepancies?

I'm sure that the answer is in the methodology each test uses but why the big difference between ICSA results and VB results on some products?

For example AVG routinely passes ICSA but routinely fails VB but supposedly they both are checking ITW viruses.

I know VB is held in high esteem but so is ICSA.

I also know that on any particular PC any AV many not work correctly due to a number of circumstances.

But over and over and over? According to VB AVG is among the worst when it comes to catching ITW viruses and according to ICSA it does as well as any of them.

Any normal person would start to question these results. This is similar to someone who has some blood tests done and the lab says he is diabetic even though the doctor doesn't believe that he has the symptoms. So he goes to another lab for another test and that lab says he is not diabetic. Who do you believe?

Thoughts?

 

VB

If I was doing any of the ITW testing, I'd be sure to test withing 2 days of a new virus being ITW - if the latest update for an AV doesn't detect it within 2 days, FAIL

I dont know if VB do this, although it might be what they do They also could be testing ALL well known ITW viruses, not just SOME

 

I think the most important thing is comparing tests. If most tests show a product is not so good, most probably it isn't and it's not worth trying. If most tests show an av has good detection, most probably it has. But in many cases tests contradict one another about some av's and in this case the only solution for the user is to try that product himslef and see if it's good. I saw tests contradict one another about AVG, tried it and didn't like it, it let viruses into my computer. The same somehow contradictory results were with NOD32 but I tried and and I liked it a lot.