AV-C On-Demand Comparative Test

It has finally been posted! I had decided to check their website today and noticed it was up.

http://av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/detection-test

 

Thanks for the information. But what's wrong with ESET?High positive rate!!It shouldn't be.

 

Wow Avast! found more than Avira! High false positive rate surprised me though. Norton only got Advanced also so I'm happy. AVG only got standard, ouch. Webroot was the most surprising, since it only got "tested". I thought it was supposed to be pretty good. Also nice to see more free versions tested.

 

Very solid performance by Microsoft. Better detection than Symantec with only one FP. Unusually high number of FPs for Eset.

 

Avira

 

Avast don't usually ask to be tested with heuristic levels set to max, hence the high FP's, but also the high detection.

On the other hand, Symantec also asked to be set to high and still got beaten by free AV's set to normal.

 

Great result for F-Secure (achieved 2nd).

LOL@Norton!!!

 

Why so serious abot Symantec vs. free AV's?

Only Avast results were suprising, they made very good changes, great product.

 

McAfee = 0 FP. Wow!!!

 

I am so happy that I made a great decision by dumping Norton for F-Secure.

 

Mcafee 0 FP surprise Intel must have made Mcafee better

 

Symantec's advantage and much of its latest developments are in Dynamic Tests and consensus from various tests shows it is a solid performer in these.

Again, the results are here, its up to the reader to make sense of it and see what's more important to them.

 

I used NIS for a full year, and from my personal experience, I must say that it's going down (their attitude sucks). The numbers do tell the story. Even, got beaten by Microsoft.

 

Sunbelt Vipre not tested....bad!!!

 

Wow, Mcafee, slightly surprising results...still lost to the freebies though.

 

Bitdefender also did very well.

 

I am not surprised that Avira did well, but Avast has really come up in the world the last few years. I am also glad to see F-Secure near the top.
Norton is a real disappointment, and a surprise.

I don't think I will change just now, but Avira, F-Secure, and Avast all look great and tempting.

Jeff, I am glad to see you hanging in there with Avira.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I have used NIS/AIS/F Secure all this year and they were all good (light as well). If it's been over a year since using them, don't drink the Kool-Aid yet!

 

yeah, it's not a bad product. not sure what happened here, since it uses the same defs and engine as the current sophos product, with additional detections via their own engine. oh well.

 

If you look at the avast! FP results it only had 15 of them. That's not exactly the end of the world plus i never had a single false positive because of high heuristics and i use it on all my systems.
Also check out the performance charts. avast! is far away from the rest of the pack with significant lead in performance. And all this with rather old version 5.1! Can't wait for avast! 6 tests, especially proactive and dynamic tests.

 

those are all very good points RejZor.

 

Scanning speed? Take the results with a grain of salt, because they depend a lot on default settings/thoroughness of the scanner, not the speed of the scan engine. Of course you're going to spend less time on scanning if the scanner is not set to unpack certain files/formats without limitations. Other vendors are possibly more thorough as opposed to (for ex.) avast which leads to increased scanning time: which, again, doesn't tell how quick the scan engine really is.
Does it matter in the real world? Probably not, some like scans to finish quick, some like them to be more thorough... but one things for certain, it makes for good marketing.

 

It's not too bad, it's average. But I agree it should have been lower indeed.

 

Considering Symantec's improvement with the latest RAP results, I was not expecting this result for Norton.

Still, this is not the real world.

 

Erm, not really. On-demand and on-access detection is pretty much the same for avast! and scanning more archives doesn't mean its any more thorough. It just wastes more resources as the end protection won't really change in the end as you always have to extract the content of archives anyway before it can be used. MSE is a good example of such wasteful resource handling by scanning all archives on-access. So if on-access and on-demand are pretty much the same and avast! scored the 3rd best (plus considering GData is also using avast! engine along with BitDefender) i wouldn't really say it's doing any less work than the rest of the products. It's simply very efficient and AVAST Software is doing a lot of work in this department lately. And it finally started paying off (starting with avast! 5.0).

I can also assure you that it makes a huge difference in the real world as well. You have to make a full system scan before you'll see massive difference though.