AV-Comparatives ~ Real-World Protection Test October 2013

http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

 

The new Big 3 - Kaspersky, Panda, Trend. Momma Mia.
Does Panda still have that toolbar?
Thanks for the share.

 

great results from so many. eset doing awesome, avast made big improvement among others and surprising we see ones like gdata fall. but for sure happy to see so many doing so great

 

I would add F-Secure to the list... no "red" since sometime.

 

What happened to 360 Qihoo - did they forget to pay Bitdefender the monthly rental payment?

 

I would like to see Baidu in the test....

 

good to see eset scoring high.

 

thanks for posting malexous. good stuff. are you one of the testers?

i would like to see more tests though, in particular, tests for false positives e.g. tests of something like the NirSoft Suite (collection of small apps that frequently get flagged as containing malware), and tests of system performance impact e.g. slowdown in boot times and program launch times of browsers and big programs like GIMP Portable.

were the tests done with default settings of each AV program? I use Qihu 360 IS, which iirc comes with 2 of 3 AV engines enabled by default and protection level set to medium when I first installed it (this may have changed with newer versions), so perhaps it may offer better protection with all 3 engines enabled and protection set to high (I use all 3 engines with protection set to medium though, but I also have ZoneAlarm to hopefully catch what Q360 may miss). I assume some of the other AV programs could perhaps protect better too with non-default settings.

 

or was the BitDefender engine enabled in these tests?

 

Yes ESET is doing better than I expected

 

Well done to the ever-underrated Eset and Avira.

Not at all.

PS. re: Qihoo, G-Data and other "underperformers"
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2305296&postcount=15

 

Wow, Eset!

 

Wow Panda!
2 months in a row @ 100%.

 

1) False Alarm Tests :
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart6&year=2013&month=9&sort=1
http://www.av-comparatives.org/false-alarm-tests/

2) Performance Tests :
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2013&month=5&sort=1
http://www.av-comparatives.org/performance-tests/

3) Details here :
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/avc_prot_2013a_en.pdf

 

thanks. ESET looks impressive; high detection rate, low false positives and minimal impact on system... Never tried it though. One reason I picked Q360 as my latest AV is because it "felt" light and others were saying it was light, but after checking out these tests I'm not so sure (it did badly in the performance test and mediocre in false positives).

 

Panda steadily improving. 2.1 introduced in 2012,, 2.2.1 in Feb 2013, 2.2 half June, 2.3 introduced end Oct.

Anti-exploit technology introduced in 2.1. According to Panda blog the 100% score of Oct is due to the 'exiting' new anti-exploit technology. When intelligence is in software code, the jumps in detection should correlate to new released. So when improvement is not luck (aug, sep, oct high scores indicate it is more than just luck), the Zero Day improvement is based on data either the AV-engine or (the claimed new) anti-exploit technology.

Since MBAE was made by former Panda developers and MBAE shows new behavior when new release is introduced (so intelligence is hard coded in the software) AND Panda opted for alternative apporach, the most logical conclusion is that the Panda intelligence is not put in software code, but in a system interpretating rules (like inversion engine with Artificial Intelligence). With a rule based system the recognition can improve by just adding new optimised rules. Looking at the releases and the improvement it is fair to assume that Panda Anti-Exploit technology is behavioral based using a rule based (decision) engine.

 

AV-Comparatives claim they test each AV at default settings.
Q360 has Bitdefender enabled by default.
Draw your own conclusions.
I liked Q360, just couldn't get it to start up in a non-administrator account when switching from administrator account without causing problems.

 

ESET

 

Nice find Btw, do you also have detection rates from Panda before 2.1? It would be interesting to see how they scored without anti-exploit. The blog about 2.3 does mention improvements to the anti-exploit btw:

EDIT: Just checked the aug-nov report from 2012, the average score for these months is 95,2%(version 2.0.0 and 2.0.1 tested) so they have improved.
EDIT2: also checked march-june 2012(v1.5.2) and aug-nov 2011(1.5.1), they scored 97,1% and 97,4% respectively.

 

In spite of its excellent result for about a year, how many of you are actually using Trend Micro?

I am using it for long in one of my PCs.

 

No more user dependent for Avast?

 

Good showing by McAfee. What gives?

 

Money and resources. They are with Intel now.

 

Great job ESET I didn't expect to see such results in a test knowing that tests usually isn't a place where ESET shines

 

Eset did well ) but I miss Webroot secure everywhere in this test. Hope they will soon figured out, have to test them. So they can be compared with they other vendors