AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test March 2014

It's also smart to switch charts to 0-100% mode, otherwise even 3% differences look enormous.

 

We've sent them a mail about fixing the sorting order of the charts. If you look at the products more on the right side of the charts you can see that the "user dependent detection" is not having any influence on the sorting order there.
You can compare that for example to the december chart from last year.

As such we believe it is just problem in the displaying of the chart which, unfortunately for us, gets misinterpreted by websites and press such as the one quoted in this thread.

 

Hi, it has been fixed, the ranking is correct, it was just again the rounding which contructed the chart with a lower bar.

 

IBK: just wanted to post the clarification myself after getting your mail, you were a wee bit faster

 

Yes, that gives correct view on detection rate comparison. Otherwise differences are blown out of proportion.

hqsec

 

But since 88.4% is the out-of-box protection level it could be argued that 80-100% is the best comparison zoom mode!

 

Hmm quite some false positives for Trend Micro but overall results are ok.

 

It's about perception of charts. with 80-100% scaling, 2% difference looks like one product beats the other by one quarter... but in the end, it's still just 2%.

 

Great job panda

 

I was actually surprised how well panda did. I was considering replacing Forti with Panda but I found both to be equally slow

That's why for me features such as false positives and IP/Web/HTTP blocking is more important. Forti does the latter very very well.

 

Surprised how poorly Lavasoft's Ad-Aware did compared to the other AVs with the BitDefender engine such as Qihoo and BullGuard.

So you need more than signatures for this test.

 

Qihoo has proactive defense and quite sensitive QVM heuristics engine. Ad-aware has nothing of this.

 

You have to consider that at this test a product can achieve a blocked result merely because it blocks access to the website from where the malware originates (IIRC). The very same malware might not be detected if it simply came from another website, a USB stick or via e-mail. In these cases Bitdefender could very well have the same lesser results as its competitors with the same engine.

 

Ad-Aware is only number one in their own inhouse tests.

 

AV-Comparitives File Detection test for March 2014 released.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/detection-test/

 

Maybe best to start a new thread with this test? Lots of false positives for Avast and Baidu.

 

Yes, evo-gen is rocking.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/avc_fps_201403_en.pdf

"Avast had 94 false alarms. Win32:Evo-gen is a relatively new heuristic detection of Avast, it is
expected that the number of false alarms caused by it will be much lower in future."

 

Wow that's a lot of FPs. With so many wrong detections those AVs can do more harm to my system than malware.

hqsec

 

And VB100...
http://lavasoft.com/products/compare.php

 

Darnit Avast! First the disappointing AV-Test results, then the disappointing AV-Comparatives Real World results, now third-to-last in File Detection, with a very high number of FPs. Avast! needs to get it's "stuff" together!

 

If AVC skipped the Lavasoft Security Toolbar during the install (And how would we know?), then Ad-Aware Free would be without malicious URL filtering which would undoubtedly impact these results. (The Lavasoft paid versions don't need the toolbar and use Bitdefender's Web protection.) As such, A-AFree's poor showing vs, for example, BD Internet Security's full blown security suite is most likely due to the fact BDIS is a... um, well, full blown security suite.

Ad-Aware Free's 2.3% Blocked differential in comparison to BullGuard's full-blown Internet Security suite is largely determined by BGIS's 4.8% user dependent "blocking."

Not excuses, just observations. A free app could have done better.

Somewhere in the 1843+ postings here on Qihoo, wasn't it reported BD is off by default? AV-C tests with defaults. So...??

Free did superbly in VB100's December test...
http://lavasoft.com/products/compare.php
and it will be interesting to see if a repeat performance shows up in the upcoming April Comparative.

Cheers.

 

Despite avast! having so many FP's, i haven't had many in all the time of Evo-gen existence. In fact it was only one and i shuffle a lot of apps through my PC. So, it's not even nearly as bad as it might look in the test.

 

The toolbar of Lavasoft is installed and used.
If you want to look at the detection engine only (like in the VirusBulletin tests), you can refer to the File Detection test; in that, all products relying on the Bitdefender engine score similar.

 

Also here:
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart1&year=2014&month=3&sort=1&zoom=3

 

Thank you! Would it be that fate had decreed that Ad-Aware Personal (at the least) or Personal Security had been tested.