av-comparatives news

Where is the August test results? Saw it a few hours ago but now not there. Any problem with the results?

 

10. Retrospective/ProActive Test May 2006 Online results / PDF (Zip) / Report
11. On-demand comparative August 2006 not available
12. Retrospective/ProActive Test November 2006 not available

 

It is a surprise that Antivir(99.6x%) scores so high detection rate, better than Bitdefender & Nod32, even a bit higher than Kav(99.06%).

 

not really. Avira is working hard on their products and what they have in beta continues to get better. The future looks promising for them. Bitdefender hurried to get 10 ready with rootkit detection. I think their results will improve as they continue to tweak this release. Kas, cant really say.

 

Yes, good things are coming.

 

Took me a while to read through everyones postings always fun. My thoughts exactly.

Well it looks like my research and instincts have a nice pay off. Congrats to the Avira team!

 

Looking at the big picture (i.e. the Standard, A, A+ rankings) it seems to me that not much has really changed from the last (Feb) on-demand test, except that McAfee went from A+ down to A, Norman went up from Standard to A, and Panda dropped out of the testing (voluntarily).

 

I wonder if now Avira might replace Avast and AVG free versions for many. If I decide to try another free AV I will try Avira instead of my standby Avast.

I have not tried it as I have an impression that it is more troublesome than the other two free ones. I cannot defend that, it is just an impression.

Jerry

 

its no problems on xp except mayeb the nag screen lol

 

i don't think so.it willnot be wise to say the least to change your AV's with every issue of popular AV testing organisation.
This is a reference to where your AV stands on their test and lemme be very honest it doesn't matter whether a particular AV has 92% or 99.6% detection..what matters is prevention and than cure.
There also more premises for deciding upon an AV than just detection-rates.
Despite antivir's detection it will never be a norton/mcafee/kaspersky/pc-cillin for sure.
Coz there are more to these companies than 99.6% detection rates..

 

I think one of the problems with Avira for a long time was the updates.
That has been improved with smaller sized updates.

One of the bigger incentives for Avira may be the fact that it's freeware.
A person could look at the results and question why he/she is paying for a program that didn't get as good a result.I'm not saying that is the correct way to look at a/v programs.But I can see where that is easy to do.

 

Congrats to Antivir - that was a surprise. But I'm sticking for now with KAV, with NOD32 as my backup AV. I've been hasty buying software before. And I want to see the next on-demand result for Antivir. I still have quite a bit of time on my KAV and NOD32 licenses. Finally, while AV Comparitives should be highly regarded, it's not the only test.

 

That's true. I'm probably going to give Antivir another shot on my computer though, perhaps even buy the paid version. We'll see.

 

Don't forget the free version has no ADSPY detection, but it's still very good and nice to be free.

 

thats true. i will probaly be getting the with firewall version when its relaesed to replace f-secure internet secuirty. On my old pentium 3 system i ran a virus scan and it didntslow it down at all etc ect. lol

 

Sorry, but Norton detecting 98,13% is a nonsense. The credibility of a test with this result is questionable... It's not true wherever...
Other results seems coherent.

 

you just miss the bigger picture. symantec improved a lot during the last years regarding the detection rate.

 

i hear nortons getting good from my friend... he's a huge norton fan ... says his system runs fine.. (but he hasn't compared to others so maybe he doesn't no how fast his comp can run). so yeah. I'll stick with kaspersky... when all these beta's are done... we should get an awesome final product....

 

You don't have to be a huge norton fan to recognize over the past time that their detection is indeed becoming better. Norton always had a good overall detection, that they miss from time to time a few trojans doesn't mean they are "bad"

 

It's not so much that Norton is ineffective, to me anyway, it's more the bloat.

 

so how can you say: "Sorry, but Norton detecting 98,13% is a nonsense. The credibility of a test with this result is questionable... It's not true wherever... Other results seems coherent."
you just said the test is not credible because Norton scores good, and now you say it is not because the detection rate is high, but because it is the "bloat". In a detection rate test the "bloat" is not tested, so why bashing the test in this way? THAT'S nonsense!

ooops, my fault, i just were noticied that i combined to posts from different users - well, anyway, have fun .

 

Sit down ,have a cup of tea and dont read so fast (he didnt say that you know... i believe it was someone else)
ellison

 

Hehe yes it was actually another guy so he screamed at the wrong one hehe

 

But back to topic - hopefully the F-Prot v3 versus F-Prot v4 Detection Chart will be online soon

 

yes,indeed ibk caught hold of the wrong guy.

anyhow what amazes me is the ease with which people use the term bloat.as of now i can't see anything in NIS which makes it bloat

on the other hand if something which is bloat is mcafee's internet security suite wid back-up and what not and also total protection.

Norton security suite or AV are one of the best in market,detection rates of 98% doesn't come as a surprise to me,atleast..

It is mainly critcised for its support more than its products..