i love test where all AV get score 99.1% avarage test but when you do amateru test even there av dont pass 70% :
I have no reason to doubt the validity of the test results. However, there are two important points to consider. Quite often the results of performance tests differ a lot from my own personal experience with testing antiviruses. This does not mean that the figures are made up. It is just a good example of how much antivirus performance can and often does vary from one computer to the next. If an antivirus got good performance scores in testing, it does not mean that it will run well on your own systems. As always, the only way to know how an antivirus will perform for you, is to install in on your own computer and test it for a few weeks. A good example of the difference in performance for one computer to the next, is that some people with high-end systems complain that Microsoft Defender is too heavy, while plenty of people without fast systems are happy with its performance. For my second point, I believe that the test results are valid for the malware tested. If the malware used for testing was newer, then you would see a much bigger difference in scores between different antiviruses. The newer a sample is, the less likely it is for an antivirus is to have signatures for it. Without signatures, detection is left to heuristics and behavioural detection and both are far from perfect. This is why, for example, you will see much bigger differences between different antiviruses when tested in Malware Hub at MalwareTips. Whether more recent malware samples should be used for testing, is something I don't have an answer for.
The problem with performance tests is the a great many users will not recognize when the AV is making it slow or even that things are slower than they should be. If you are happy with what you are running then that is it, you won. If not, try something else until you are happy.
