The following summary shows a comparison of tested solutions to protect workstations against malware. https://avlab.pl/en/recent-results/
Thanks for posting that. It was very illuminating. However, I personally see no value in that comparison. It is hardly comprehensive. Plus the products being evaluated are only there because they paid a fee to be there. Paying a fee, of course, does not automatically suggest any bias, but it sure can lead to the "appearance" of bias. And that alone puts the results in doubt IMO - and that is in spite of how robust any denial of bias may be. And then of course, having to pay a fee means only those who pay get included. Note the products NOT included: Bitdefender Emsisoft F-Secure HitmanPro IObit Malware Fighter Kaspersky McAfee Microsoft Defender Norton 360 Panda TotalAV Trend Micro Vipre Zemana And that is just a few of the more popular products I was able to name off the top of my head. And I have to wonder what value a reader is going to get with a comparison between, for example, EMSISoft Business Security - a program with advanced features clearly intended for a business environment, and Avast Free, a basic solution intended for the normal home user? Isn't like comparing a compact 4-door sedan family car to a commercial delivery van? To me, this AVLab comparison simply shows us consumers another example of how these so called laboratory reviews and comparisons are deeply flawed, and how the results should be taken with a open mind, if not a huge bag of salt. And that is something we, as consumers, need to see.
I would correct you. ESET didn't pay anything for the test. Moreover, we were not even aware of us being tested.
Looks like everyone did reasonably well but I must say great job ESET, makes me happy to be running it.
Interesting. Please note I am just going by the AVLab FAQ under, "Are the tests free?", it clearly says they collect a "very small fee". This is how it should be, IMO!
Well, does the company themselves have to be one to pay the test fee? Can’t someone just go to them and say “I want you to test this product my family or business use” and pay for the fee without the company knowing about it?
Not sure how you would expect us to know that. I suggest you ask the testing lab that question, then let us know what they say.
Hello everyone on the WildersSecurity! First, thanks for your interest and active questions. How about one step at a time: - First of all, the fee is necessary because the infrastructure maintenance is significant, including the licenses and the automation of everything. This particular Advanced In The Wild Malware Test is specifically built to have a human doing as little work in it as possible. I briefly mentioned it in this article, please use any translator: https://avlab.pl/jak-testujemy-w-avlab-6-najwazniejszych-problemow-oraz-ile-to-kosztuje/ Of course, everything is detailed in the methodology: https://avlab.pl/en/methodology/ Vendors who work with us know that they get technical data in feedback, and many times - seemingly through such testing - AV products have been improved through updates. I think the test does a good job for the community as a whole regardless of whether you even know AVLab exists but use security products. - The methodology is the same for both business and home products, so we don't see a threat to juxtapose the home and business product. Anyway, you can discard these extreme cases without comparing them. But to set up new infrastructure only for business products with the same methodology - does that make sense? Of course the EDR test, for example, makes no sense to compare with a home product. But Advanced In The Wild Malware Test is a check of protection in a specific situation - a real one while using a browser. - As for Eset. Great score! However, we have not been able to contact anyone at the Eset corporation in the past regarding testing in 2021, 2020. Our questions have gone unanswered. - The choice of Vendors is determined by the server performance limit. Even if we wanted to, we cannot test all of those listed during a single test release. - We try to be extra transparent, so ask anyway.
Adrian - thanks for stepping in. I want to clarify one of my points. Concerning the value to the reader comparing business class with home products, my concern here is not about methodology. And certainly there is no "threat" lumping them together. I am just suggesting, to avoid confusion for the "normal user", they should not be in the same "report". If a consumer is researching a product for their home computer(s), it really makes no sense to compare it with a product designed (or marketed) for business. Same with a business looking for a business oriented product. I can certainly understand this too. I just wish each release involved a much wider, comprehensive field of products. As I look back over the previous results for the past year, I see the same 6 - 8 each time, with, maybe, 1 or 2 others occasionally interspersed in. And for sure, I see the problem there too - effectiveness of any one product can and do change month to month too. But that just illustrates my point. What good is the review for Bitdefender if the last one was a year ago (May 2021)? I am NOT suggesting I have all the answers - or even any of them. Actually, I do have the answer. And the answer is better user training/security awareness, and discipline. Nobody needs the absolute best security solution out there - except, maybe, that person who is intentionally reckless and purposely tries to get infected. For everyone else, they just need a decent basic security solution AND they need to keep it and their OS current. If users don't dink with the defaults, this part is done automatically for them. But most importantly, users need to avoid being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, popups, and attachments. And that is true regardless their security solution of choice. If that were not a true fact, there would be 100s of millions of infected Microsoft Defender users out there right now. And that is not happening. This is were user training and security awareness comes in. Sadly, for home users, that onus is left on them. The best security in the world is pointless if the user opens the door and invites the bad guy in. Still, I like to say we don't need to drive around in an Abrams Tank to remain safe. What we need is a recent model car, keep its safety features properly maintained, AND we need to drive defensively. That will NOT ensure we will never get into an accident. But odds are, if we are involved in one, injuries will be minimal, if any. So same with computing. Use a current version of Windows, and keep it and its safety features current and use it defensively (avoid being click-happy). And of course, keep current backups. I think AVLab and the other testing facilities provide a valuable service. I just wish the field of compared products was more comprehensive and the tests did a better job of representing the current (as in today's) "real-world" threats and scenarios. Last - I am NOT singling out AVLab. As I noted above, it is a problem facing the entire antimalware testing industry - and a problem that sadly, leaves the consumer confused, with doubt, or still in the dark (whether they realize it or not) .
