VB RAP Test December 2010 through June 2011

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml

 

Expected results, I think, Coranti and Trustport the best with multiple engines. Personally I am happy with the results.

Some things: G Data and especially Emsisoft not as great as they did before.
Very nice BullGuard results

In my eyes you could draw a line between AVG/Sophos/Symantec and Nifty/Webroot. Everything right/top of the line is good (some unknowns to me: Softscan, ZeoBit, UnThreat, Microsafe, Bkis; I wouldn't buy any of them [also not Qihoo]) and everything left/down of the line is sh*t.

Who can explain the huge difference between Comodo AV and Comodo IS?

 

I have to totally take exception to the results. As you may remember, Trustport has consistently rated very high in these tests. Seeing this I considered switching, but before I did I ran my usual trial test- once weekly for 4 weeks I ran between 15-20 malware links (from the usual sources) against Trustport. In every case detection ranged between 60-70%, a far cry from the 99+ that is touted for this product.

Although it is obvious that VB will use many more samples to get their results than I did, for me to randomly find those malware files that Trustport did not detect (0.2%) seems very improbable. I know that most everyone here scoffs at Utube reviews, but for some odd reason the results there mirror mine.

 

Way to go G Data.

 

cannot found trend micro ?

 

Pretty much all of the companies in the top right did well. The stand outs are probably Bullguard and Avira. Coranti & Trustport did well with their multi AV scanners but I find their resource usage and pricing per year to rule them out completely.

 

All other vendors had improved their detection rates
congratulations, they have made a progress

 

Surprised to see Lavasoft do so well.

Good result for Kaspersky.

Is McAfee ever going to come back and be good again?

 

Lavasoft uses G Data as engine, which in turn uses Bitdefender and Avast, so it shouldn't be a surprise than Lavasoft and G Data results are similar.

 

Wow, Bullguard is doing great as well

 

Wow, good to see companies performing.

The only weird thing is that if i remember correctly EAM used to be at top
What could have happened

 

Avast surprised me a little bit, not to chabby results

 

I'm a little suspicious about Bullguard's position on that chart as they seemed to have leaped from mediocrity to the top of the heap in just a couple of months.

Does anyone actually use Coranti and Trustport? My main computer is fast with SSDs and those programs grind it to a halt.

BTW...this test is for Windows 2008.

 

Among the also-rans that I am watching ---
+Fortinet's freebie: This is an AV+FW combo. 80-85 percentile & climbing. Updates sigs often. Ran light when I trialed it. Good intrusion blocking. It's worth keeping an eye on IMO.

 

I question this organizations tests most of the time. When I do my own tests, my finding seem more in line with AV-Comparitives. But then again, AV-Comparatives is the gold standard of AV testing.

 

I agree with you, and I have done many times what cruelsister said in his post with the same conclusion.

Bkis http://www.bkis.com/home.aspx in the top 5? I have never heard about this Vietnamese av

And bullguard using Bitdefender engine score much better... I can't understand why bitdefender licenses their engine to everybody if they perform worse.

 

There are two Anti-Virus companies in Vietnam. CMC Infosec and BKAV Corporation.

 

Aren't the pro-active results the ones you should be comparing for your test? Reactive would be after the program scans the files on your computer.

 

@cruelsister: That's probably because they don't test it with just recent malware.

Although the quality isn't as good as AV-C, I do appreciate the sheer quantity of products tested by VB.

 

uhm, to what quality do you refer?

 

may be this would give an idea :
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/06/09/trend_vb_test_criticism/

I am not saying that

 

After reading some posts here, there is a huge ? in my mind.
So much inconsistency in the results

 

+1.

 

First of all, there is no internet connection. Unacceptable nowadays.
Secondly, AV-C reports show much more detail and information (at least for free).
Lastly, AV-C has a history of quality reports, while VB has been criticized (and rightly so) like in the link by Nevis.