On-Demand Comparative August 2011

MBAM will only kick in when a file is executed.

 

Reading my post #49, I realize it was misleading. What I really meant is that Vipre detected and cleaned so well that neither MBAM nor Avira picked any leftovers from Vipre (MBAM is often used in video tests to check if anything was left behind by other AVs).

 

Ah right. Gotcha.

 

On-Demand Comparative (August 2011)

Avira: Back on Top...
Symantec: Surprisingly Low...

 

U could have done the test in reverse..scanning with avira n mbam and concluding u dont need paid av [vipre] for protection

 

eset pushed the v5 in the tests right away and got excellent results. to me this is a huge confidence move, and it paid off. congrats to the team

 

Does v5 use other virus definitions than v4? This is an on-demand scan, so wouldn't they get the exact same results?

 

I wonder why they don't have so many followers, at least here at Wilders. The price is certainly steep: 49.99 $ for the AV, and the performance is certainly not consistent in most tests.

 

MBAM, Avira, and Vipre are all paid versions on my machines. I like to think Vipre is very promising, but it should be tested by AV Comparatives.

 

But for the static detection both avira free and avira paid will ahve same detection

 

Surprised by norton's result. hope it performs better in next test .

McAFee is ot surprise for me. it always scored well in Ondemand tests but fails on other tests.

ESET , AVira, KAspersky, AVast did great

 

It's nice to see that the Multi-engine solutions got great detection results, even though some got too many FP's.

Well Symantec got it all wrong this time in terms of FP's nothing more to say really. ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ happens

And it's nice to see that Trend Micro is doing well in an on-demand test for once

About the Free AV's well I must say that I am really impressed with PCAV just amazing. And Avira too, let's just hope that their good trend is on going in V12 as well. Same for Avast!

And ESET not the best not the worst just as usual in O-D tests.

And it's a shame that Sophos and Webroot had problems with their cloud technology during the test period.

And McAfee get's for their outstanding FP rating!

 

What I always find surprising is that the products that do well in these on demand tests never seem to fair well in the few "real world" tests that I have read,Kaspersky hasn't done too well here but always beats the ones that are top here in real world situations??It goes to show that "On demand" detection isn't the be all and end all,especially when for this test some of the weapons(for want of a better term) of some products are disabled,in fact the way it is conducted doesn't really have any relevance to the way I or most other users would use some products

 

Yes real world is most important,prevention before hand and not trying to clean up a mess afterwards that so many struggle to clean anyways.However its still a good thing a OD scan lets us know it found something rather I'm clean and its not.

 

Heh.

 

The Norton tests really came out badly. You don't expect them to do well at this - since this test doesn't look at pro-active technology such as Sonar or IPS. Even so, if their "Insight" does half of what they claim they should never have had their terrible FP scores.

They also should have done better in performance - they make lots of aggrssive claims about scan speed.....though in truth it is a kinda silly metric.

I wonder if this test was done without an internet connection - that would explain the failure of insight to catch FPs

 

Avira!!!

 

microsoft has not done well this time...........one of the lowest detection-rate and slowest on-demand scan speed test.........i was sincerely hoping for better....

 

Kudos to McAfee, but I have noticed that their product is significantly less effective when you are not connected to the Internet.

As for eScan, I think they just need to fine tune their own engine a bit more. I was surprised at PC Tools' result - I thought having Symantec's definitions would get it a better score. I really think Symantec should consider merging the cloud networks of PC Tools and Norton.

 

just a a thought re-Norton:-if these results are for August wont these tests have been conducted before the release date of 2012 products,the version on sale/for download now is a different version!

 

NIS 2011 and 2012 uses the same definitions, and this is a pure on-demand scan test.

 

same definitions maybe but if the way each version detects malware is different then the results could be different even using same definitions

 

Partially correct.
Both NIS 2011 and 2012 can use Full or the Core set of definitions. NIS 2011 uses the full set and NIS 2012 uses the core set, such change can explain the increase in FP's.

And for the poster asking for ESET definitions, there is no major differences, if any, the engine is shared between v3/v4/v5 and the definitions are improved rather than changed completely, if you see better rates in dynamic test, this can be due to URL blockers.

 

It's for sale all over the place here or has been recently. Consistency is lacking as you say. I just wonder if it's the start of something good?

 

McAfee has always seemed to be a huge drag on the system, so I don't think people here at Wilders will go for it, even if detection is stellar....