Comodo beat Norton (Symantec)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370759,00.asp?kc=PCRSS05079TX1K0000992

 

This has already been closed three times.

Im going to jump right to the point since I know some members here will beat this to death and drag this one and beat around the bush.

First and foremost Comodo is meant to keep a clean system clean, not removal.

Ok cool. We have established this test isnt meant to remove threats, but about detecting them and preventing infection.

Again Norton doesnt understand what Comodo is meant to do. They also clearly dont understand what the test was meant to do as stated in my first quote.

Again here I believe its easier to keep a system clean than to get it infected and properly remove all threats and traces of said threats. Here Norton clearly failed. The ONLY thing that Norton excels in is cleanup. And yet again Norton making false claims. Nice to see they havent learned anything.

I for one can say that Ill never use a Norton product because of this public idiocy.

 

This is useless. We can't compare two product because so many things matters. How light is it, detection and how easy to use.

We can't determine how to answer hips alerts and so on.... so many things we dont know this is why we cant compare two products.

 

This is a prevention test. Its stated right in the first quote I made and at that CIS passed with 100%. Nothing complicated here.

 

This guy is mad . Just see how he speaks in the video. I think he has nothing improtant to do but trying to beat a company much much bigger than he is. He failed and he'll fail again

 

you clearly dont understand what im trying to say. we dont have a well organized testing metholodgy, accepted by all antivirus companys. and if we have some kind(like av-comparatives) that we trust, still we have to examine other parts of security softwares. if just detection/prevention matters than i would always choose the highest rated security product.

as i said, we cant compare two security suites how they perform in the real world, out of the lab, out of lab tests.

im not defending Symantec because im not an employee, its just a product that i use at the moment but for me these so called "VS" tests are pretty useless.

 

Just can't find the full report (very busy these days) . If someone could help me ...

< Found it in another forum section >

 

Hi

Here is a report about the test.

http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/Symantec-versus-Comodo.pdf

I did not understand what exactly was leftover for each product and whether this could compromise the PC.

I would also want to know how many malware were caught by Comodo AV and how many by the sandbox.

 

I understand what your saying, but this test isnt to see what is lighter, lessy buggy, etc. Its for prevention. Hence why the other junk isnt included.

 

Does anyone know why the organization that did the testing never published a report? We seem to be left with some tabular data published separately by Comodo with no interpretation or comments by the testing organization. Did they and Comodo disagree? Comodo did well, but I think this is very strange to be referencing Comodo pdf postings for all the information.

 

Where's the dynamic FP test?

The 100% result of Comodo isn't anything surprising, but it has yet to get no FPs when actually running normal programs.

One prevention test doesn't tell enough. All this useless propaganda and drama is really making me dislike Comodo products. Norton is doing a great job for average users (it's main targeted audience), although they're also spreading this "free antivirus isn't enough" thing (but not nearly as actively as Comodo).

 

Check the Comodo link in post 8.
It seems that FP set consisted of 20 samples.

 

So they both blocked, or at least warned against, 100% of the samples. And NIS is much better at cleanup than CIS. To me it sounds like NIS came out on top, not CIS.

Though this does illustrate what I already knew. CIS will protect a clean system provided you know how to answer the HIPS questions.

 

COMODO sponsored the test and they have the right to use it on their web site if they prefer so . AV-Test.org does not generally publush test results on their web sites because they get paid for every test and they publish their results in various magazines or sites.

 

Except the test wasnt about cleanup its about preventing having to cleanup in the first place.

Comodo blocked 100%, Norton just warned about 100%, but didnt prevent 100%.

 

Ah, so this is not a part of the independent certification tests listed at http://www.av-test.org/certifications.php , It is a sponsored test by Comodo, not an ITO test from av-test like the others in the table?

 

Not just to you - the PDF files with the results shows that Norton did better .
COMODO's goal was to show that free also protects . Additionally using just 30 samples and they were chosen from one of the parties - it is just not enough.

 

Does this mean that Comodo got to keep choosing sample sets until they got a favorable enough outcome? And published the best set of results under an NDA? Or will there eventually be a description of the whole thing somewhere by the testing organization?

 

I think the test was not done with a good amount of samples.

Frankly I think that Norton would win in a test better organized.

For me this test is useless.

 

Melih, the man doesn't quit, I'll give him that much. Not that this test means a whole lot, but if Norton had slammed them in the results, he would have said something was wrong with the test method.

 

ROFL, that PR must be 12?

I'm a little confused about 1 thing though, since it's clear that Norton detected/warned for 100% of this mere 30 sample test, but what is unclear, is if this specific test was on CAV only, or they were testing the ability of malware to penetrate Comodo's "warn-you-for-every-file" technology.

 

For being free, that's a good showing by Comodo. I could always use MalwareBytes Free for removal. And if you know how to respond to the prompts, Comodo would be hard to beat.

Norton, however, remains better for security novices.

 

No , you are wrong! What COMODO (Melih) urgently wants to make people believe is that FREE and COMODO is better than PAID , not "for free it is good" .
Because Symantec's point is free and basic security is not enough. We need more protection - not less (features). Melih wanted to show (muscles) even though he lacks them.

 

Let's not turn this into a free vs paid thing again. A brain is free and is available to all, and is the number 1 security app. After that it's simply a matter of specific needs. Price is irrelevant. This whole entire thing from the get go has been about Melih and ego, that is it.

 

I am right. I wasn't talking about Melih there. I was talking about the facts of the performance. And you'll NEVER convince me that free isn't enough.