AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test February-May 2022

AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test February-May 2022
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-february-may-2022/

Chart:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/com...chart_month=Feb-May&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=2

PDF:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/avc_real-world_protection_2022a.pdf

 

So just three AVs blocked 100% of the bad guys. That's why I use a daily image backup. No matter what they advertise, they will always have vulnerabilities.

 

Holy crap, just another way too complex looking AV test. But from what I understood, if they say ''compromised'' then the AV has failed to block malware from running, no matter how the malware was delivered in these 725 test cases, which I assume it means that AV's were tested against 725 malware samples? And both ESET and Win Defender failed 7 times, interesting stuff. Bitdefender and Malwarebytes did pretty good with only one missed sample.

 

... and a lot FP.

 

OMG norton is worst , lots of FP

 

Not having the fp with Norton Power Eraser though, not like it was even four-five months ago. And I've had really good luck submitting fp to Norton; they're surprisingly prompt if your submission is legit.

So I'll take the scanner any day as just the idea of a third party antivirus (actually any antivirus software) isn't very palatable on here.

 

As far as I’m concerned, I’m happy about MS Defender results: out of 725 threats it blocked 718 with 0 FPs (finally MS Defender is only catching real stuff). Now in the real world nobody is going to run into 725 threats even if you are trying to get infected intentionally, and in the very remote case that it would happen, a backup image would restore a healthy system in about 3 minutes. Norton’s protection rate 100% and 50 FPs? Thanks, but no thanks…

 

The contra MS-Defender people are running out of arguments...

 

I have a few problems with Defender.

1. Performace
2. It is heavily cloud dependant
2. It can be bypassed without the user taking actions other than point and click. Best option for the novice would likely be something like DefenderUI.

If it was more like BD, or Kaspersky it would be top notch. If I were the average joe end user who uses out of date systems, browsers, no adblock etc, I would gladly pay money for a third party av.

Folks like us who are more aware and tech savvy sure, we can get away with WD, an ad blocker, and backups. But most folks are not us.

 

100%. Defender and image backup are all you need.

 

Yes,
Millions of users uses "standard" WD. Of course it will be a main target for malware writers. And the performance problems of it.

 

Good results from AVs rated A***. Others can improve their detection or false positives.

 

1. Performance varies per computer, I have zero issues.

2. So are many other AV's.

3. Anything can be bypassed, but 99.9% of users have nothing to worry about. Defender UI is good, so is Configure Defender, for novice's and more advanced users.

4. It is top notch, for the users that use out of date systems and are click happy, even a 3rd party AV won't save them.

 

Millions use Avast and Kaspersky too, they are targets as well. Performance problems vary per computer, I have none.

 

The performance factor with WD is not an issue for me on my six computers. Testers claim all sorts of things, but much of it is subjective by the very nature of the tests. Do what works for you.

 

True for those that are doing it. I bet most of the folks here don't make regular image backups. As for average PC users, I bet almost all of them do not.

 

@digmor crusher

You may not have problems but others do. Try using it on a corporate network and let me know how performance works out for you. True about cloud dependancy, but others have better offline protection. Which other av's can be easily bypassed? MS needs to do better here. As for your last statement, we can agree to disagree.

 

The false positive rate of Norton Lifelock, Trend Micro, Malwarebytes and Panda is unacceptable for me.

 

Agreed. These companies need to step up their game.

 

Norton owns Avira, but apparently they want to stick to the old Symantec legacy.

 

Yeah, they want to stick to its "great" legacy of detecting everything that isnt whitelisted by the cloud; I would rather see Avira engine in Lifelock products because Avira staff actually does some R&D and malware hunting and not just some generic cloud detection for every bit of unknown code.

 

Norton is like the most premium branding with the highest cost-cutting in terms of actual R&D and staff resources to actual technology relative to the money available to invest. It's always been mediocre but apparently this product's name is way too big to fail, along with it's old rival McAfee.

 

Totally right. If you restrict everything you may not run malware, but a lot of other legitimate stuff will be marked. Overkill.

 

Ok.

 

Cheers. @Firecat You make me want to try the new Avira now.