AV-Comparatives - Real-World Protection Test - March 2013

=
Worldwide AV Product Market Share

Market Share Report September 2012

 

That does nothing, I said in a few years time if they did nothing to catch up.
And anyways I don't look at graphs I look at popularity on forums. Not that much anymore

 

Sure, few forums can be the representatives of the whole world...

 

This is true. But you are also only looking at numbers. I am looking mainly at detection and Protection rates, and lets face it they are falling. Once it hits a certain "low" the product is "Dead" to me. I will not look at it as a viable option for clients or family members. Avira is at that point right now.

 

This is your true

 

whats that in english? lol

 

according to google translate:
luigi Pirandello
and so (if you like)
did a google search for above result & apparently it is a play by Pirandello:
http://www.pirandelloweb.com/english/1917_right_you_are/right_you_are_cover.htm

 

well... some AVs with 98-100% protection hmm i see...,i respect that but i prefer my own
private tests

 

Hmmm, well be sure that "private tests" are not reliable ... you need widespreads samples...

 

do i must accept 100% protection then? ok maybe iam the average joe-fanboy
ask some malware specialist and some mawlare writers and tell them about
98% and 100% widespread protection and some info about my private tests
i do care for 0 to 3-4 days the most, samples as the common infections
stuxnet was invisible for about 4 years from "widespread protection"
also in every AVs removal forum there are still many ppl asking for help from
widespread infections
u go for 100% i will go for lets say 75%

 

Thanks, that's good to know. Still I liked what I saw Would be good if you could post an update in this thread when the results goes live again.

 

I guess ESET won't be any better in the updated test.

 

No, but that's not what I meant. I meant then everyone will know that it's live and it will be accessible from that point forward

 

Lets all wait for the "final" report.

Basing selection of software on incomplete results is a bad idea.

I wait for a product to fall out of the top 5 before replacing it myself and tend to favour those that detect and clean new parasites that don't yet have signatures. Even then I wait for my subscription to run out.

 

"Wishful thinking"

There is no denying that Avira in terms of 0 day detection is not consistent as Kaspersky and Bitdefender but that doesn't mean they are "dead". Avast is doing well, but if we consider the results in the last 2 years it hasn't scored higher than Avira.

The big psychological hurdle is to understand that most AVs might fail with a 0 day (even Bitdefender will never guarantee 100%, even though it scores 100% most of the time) but they are all fairly reliable 2 weeks after the 0 day was created.

 

Frankly, who cares what was 2 years ago. Thats ancient history in AV world. What's important is how it does NOW.

 

It does pretty well

 

Agreed

 

The official results are now online.

 

Great! Thanks for the update

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

 

0.9% compromised for eset and it is so behind in the chart..looks like the competition just became more tougher this year

 

Nice to see avast did well.

 

Fortinet did just as good as Bitdefender wow!

 

The file detection test results have been published as well by the way:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/detection-test