AV-Comparatives: Summary Report 2010

congrats to f-secure
good work


had it been more lightweight then it would have found place in many of more Pc's

 

Does F-Secure still start like a dozen processes when installed? I am kind of allergic to that, even if the program is lightway in spite of that.

Congrats to F-Secure though!

 

Well...i feel F-Secure heavier on my system than Norton but congrats to them.

 

f-secure ( from the name i feel this antivirus will not working good on my laptop)

effffff secure make my computer slow
effffff secure make the browsing of the net slow
effffff secure make the downloading slow
effffff secure eat the memory in my computer
effffff secure use too much of cpu usage

thanx

sure i will stay away from effff secure untile they fix all of the problems.

 

I just had time to read the whole report . Perhaps this says it all why F-Secure is AV of the year (and explains why some others aren't)
Fair or not - that is AVC's decision :

~ Removed Screenshot & Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request
- See Summary Reports page (Overall winner of 2010 section a) for the actual PDF ~

 

Congrats to F-Secure!

Norton is a good AV and it's hard for an AV to win every year.

Agree with trjam about Avast. This AV will be improving.

 

Very good written report, and nice screen shots! Good work AVC! The only thing I am missing in the report is that there is no mention of what the different engines the AV products use; in-house or third party, and if so, which third-party engine? (Example: the G Data or F-Secure products)

Based on my own experience, I agree with the ratings of the different AV-products. It's nice that AVC reward products showing improvements, but they should also not forget products that consistently score well.

Overall, I feel F-Secure, Kaspersky, Avira, Avast and Symantec/Norton are the top products. NOD32 is also worth a mention because of their very strong heuristics (and low rates of FPs), and "automatic" upload of suspicious files. This is something I miss in for example Avira.

 

What makes you so positive about MSE version 2? I have tried it several times and I am not impressed, performance-wise it ain't faster than version 1 on my 64-bit system. In contrary, scanning times are epic slow. And the behavior monitor part which is mentioned in the options, I have never seen it doing anything. A module I was happy about, the script protection, was removed from the final. How much the detection has improved is really hard to say. One good improvement however is made on removal of malware, which is a lot faster now.

I agree with you on ESET version 5 and avast! version 6 though.

Also, F-Secure is a great product, especially for novice users and families. However if they want too get me aboard they should do a few things:
- improve performance-wise, since I always have been using ESET I am used to really light products. F-Secure should improve in boot time and on-access sscanning speed;
- recode their program so it ain't using that many processess anymore, which I find creepy (just like AVG, however that is my favourite freebie);
- modernize their tray icon, it is ugly;
- maybe give some more advanced options, make it some more configurable.

 

I must disagree to some extent . Avast is definitely showing progress unlikely ESET which is going downhill. Antivirus of the Year 3 years ago . Last year they were bronze with few awards . Currently - in the last summary results ESET gains no awards , which means they have turned from no.1 to simply average security product. ESET is no longer beating to be one of the first , on top. AV-Test Q2 and Q3 confirms.
The fact that ESET will most likely release v5 this year doesn't change anything unless something else changes in the company itself.

 

2 times Advanced, all the other times Advanced+
VB RAP the top-performer single engine product
Next to that it has never let me down in six years

I wouldn't call that average, I agree they ain't the topperformer anymore. But they are only a small margin behind, and they still have strong points. Performance, GUI, scan times, false positives, signature database/update (really small/fast compared too others (like a total of 28MB compared to products which have >100MB)).

Also AV-C says: ESET is arguably the best product not to have won an annual award this year.

If they crank up the detection just a little, by implementing a new features, it will be in the top 3 again.

 

Symantec = 6 Advanced+ and 1 Advanced in one of the retrospective tests.

Also, Gold Award in the Whole-Product Dynamic Test that "is the closest possible simulation of real-world malware protection, and so may be regarded as the most relevant single test. The anti-virus vendors have also indicated that they regard this test as the most meaningful."

They must be devastated, yes.

 

They are not the top performer when it comes to performance:
# AVC latest Performance test (summary page 15) ~ Removed Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request - See Performance Tests page for the actual PDF ~
# AVC latest Scaning speed test (page 11) ~ Removed Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request - See Detection Tests page for the actual PDF ~

# The fact that they have low fp rate is nothing special because nowadays (2010-2011) most products do have low fp rate.
# Having small signature database is correct but this is of no help to ESET since it is neither the fastest , nor the lightest product anymore , nor it detects more than a vendor with a slightly bigger overall database.

By the way what vendor has bigger than 100 MB database ?

 

Congratulations to F-Secure for Improving itself.
AVIRA AntiVir excelled, too...
Meanwhile, Wilders is waiting for avast! 6 and ESET NOD32 5...

 

A lot of products are doing great this year - happy to see that

A side note... Anyone knows if F-Secure Client Security has the latest version of Deepguard? I see a beta 9.10 but it dosent mention version numbers of deepguard.

 

Typical Avira: always at the top even with a ProActiv module that is still work in progress. Yes, I do support Avira because I've had it for almost 3 years with consistent high detection percentages, but in earnest almost any AV nowadays is a good choice considering the current high standards, and that none of them can be relied on as a first line of defense.

 

its not only you think

its what everybody think

anyways , as i said earlier ,,, had it been light then we would have welcomed it more well

yeah.,, i am terribly waiting to see something new for eset

 

Congrats to F-Secure for making a huge come back, and making huge improvements after being relatively quiet in the market the past 3 or 4 years. Keep working hard

 

I think they have their own anti-malware engine onto of the anti-rootkit and deepguard.

 

Congratulations to the Following Vendors:
- F-Secure and Symantec
- Avira
- ESET

for the excellent results obtained.

 

First, I am not saying the lightest, or fastest. But I am saying that it is very light and fast, lighter than other products I have considered to use/or have used.

I should be more specific on lightness. I am using win 7 64-bit, and all performance tests are performed on 32-bit systems, however the Raymond.cc results seem to be more correlating with my experiences.

If I look at the products who get a higher rating on AV-C for lightness:
F-Secure: not on my system, and F-Secure needs to drastically improve boot time
Kingsoft: the product sucks anyway, not a product I consider when comparing the major antiviruses
Microsoft: certainly not lighter on my 64-bit system, and on-demand scans are pathetic slow
AVG: slower than ESET on boottime, hard to say something about the rest
Avira: is indeed very fast too, and it might be lighter than ESET, but I can't comment since I have never used Avira longer than let's say two days
K7 and eScan: see Kingsoft (I know eScan doesn't suck, but I will never consider using it)
Sophos: is more focused on business, not a product I will consider using

So for me the only one of this list which might perform faster is Avira.

You seem to have a point on on-demand scanning time, but on a system scan my pc still feels very fast, I can do anything I want and RAM usage is never higher than 60MB under full load.

ESET is still lower on FP's than a lot of vendors, FP's might be going down on most products, but the amount of false positives at McAfee (10x higher) and Panda (20x higher) are still a lot higher. Also I have experienced severe false positives with AVG (4x higher) in the past. ESET has never given me any false positive which caused me any trouble (just once on a keygen).

Vendors with 100+ mb databases:
Comodo used to have, they just brought it down to like 80MB
Kaspersky
G Data and almost all other multi engine products (including F-Secure, since it ain't a classic multi engine program)
McAfee
Symanted Endpoint (I am not sure about Norton)
I don't have the exact data available from the others, but the above mentioned I am sure off.

Oh yes: it is my experience, on my system, in my environment, with my behavior. I don't know any test which is valid for me.

 

you are not alone, I tested their last version and its really heavy on PC, most noticiably when opening files, I see no reason other than commercial to promote f-secure.
I won't say congrats to any paid AV.

 

Congrats to F Secure, but I do not like Avs with multiple engines. It bloats the system.

I wonder why Eset is no longer developing new features, I mean it has no behaviour blocker, HIPS, cloud scanning or reputation system. It is only relying on its good heuristics.

 

LOL

 

haha, ye it gave me a lol to, i wonder if the poster follows that principle and works for free himself?

 

Congratz to F-Secure, it has really improved in the last years. I dislike how it still has about 7 processes though.