AV-Test.org: July / August 2013 - Windows 7

Nothing (Protection Score: 2,0/6.0).

Results are same as the previous test (May/Jun 2013):
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=132354
Protection Score: 1,5/6.0

-----------
Jan/Feb 2013
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=130570
Protection Score: 3,5/6.0

 

The test result pages said nothing like that.
hxxp://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1%5Breport_no%5D=133194
hxxp://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1%5Breport_no%5D=133133

Do they say it somewhere else which I missed? Unless of course, it involves the usage of common sense, in which I'm lacking. It seems that you're right if that's the case.

 

For ZA see below...

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2266474&postcount=84

 

Then re-read:

-----------------------
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=133160
Avast: Free Antivirus
Performance
in s =7
Performance Score:3,0/6,0
---------------
---------------

 

I told you, there's nothing that explicitly says "lower values indicate better results" on the performance test results, only in usability results. The "in s (seconds?)" indicator is too blurry.

 

"6 points of 6 points" is better than "0 points of 6 points" (and 6 is higher than 0). In case of the seconds taken, fewer seconds are better. That's how I interpret it.

 

They don't write test for idiots.......

 

Great job Comodo! Avast! did well, but I don't believe the performance results. It has always done well in performance tests. I don't see how ZoneAlarm did so poorly with Kaspersky's engine/sigs.

 

I feel some how transparent, lol

Read above post 28

 

Oh well, then AV Comparative test results are for the idiots because they clearly stated which higher or lower values mean better results. Okay Einstein...

 

Then I better look at some other tests e.g AV-C that I fully understand

 

I'm not Einstein, I'm not idiot.
How about you?

AV Comparative test
--------------------------------

 

I'm a God. A God that even the Kings of Gods will bow down to me.

BTW, no Emsisoft?

 

No, Emsisoft doesn't currently participate in the tests by AV-Test, only AV-C at the moment (wich I personally think is enough) But the CEO said a while back that they maybe could join AV-Test next year.

 

It's about time.

 

not worth looking at the results are from throwing darts, there is nothing there in the report I believe is real...

 

McAfee has performed respectably here.

 

Actually I said that statement in context to Avast,if you look at result for avast it scored 100% when it came to detection of 4 week sample set which I feel is NOT true, I didnt mention Mr.COMODO anywhere if you read my words correctly,so dont assume

We know both very well here,and none of here are fanboys so lets keep it like that.You have used avast,I use and have used COMODO.

 

Why does Kaspersky show up higher than NIS when you filter by performance, when NIS scored higher than Kaspersky? Or did I read the scores wrong?

This scoring makes no sense to me. 94 out of 100 nets a 5.5 protection score which is the same as a 99 out of 100 protection score. Kaspersky and Symantec at 5.5. Microworld escan at 94 in the zero day column for one month sitting at the same 5.5 score.

 

Did you sort from fastest down to slowest (down arrow)? If I sort that way, NIS is above Kaspersky.

 

I sorted by protection, which given the zero-day score, NIS should be above Kasperesky.

 

When you filter by performance, NIS is above Kaspersky as it should be.

Then Kaspersky should be below NIS, you are right. Yet I don't know if they are sorting a second time between products with the same protection score in points (5.5 for both), by going after the actual amount of missed samples.

 

It's probably a tie going by their scoring system, but if you look at the data, NIS clearly performed better.

 

Yep! Sir....I actually have so many clients running avast and they never complained about its performance.But people here who claim to have issues,well,my opinion is that different PC's have different configurations so cant say without any further information from most complainers

 

IMHO if you want to reply on these results restrict your choices to vendors who provide corporate products The profits they make there should improve the home ones.

I realize this notion may wipe out some of your favorites.