AV-Test Results for Sep/Oct Now Available

http://twitter.com/avtestorg

 

Very much appreciated!
Thanks!

 

Results are now available:
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/sepoct-2012/
Outstanding result for Bitdefender.
Trend Micro continues to make good progress.
Microsoft disappoints by failing certification.

 

I'm satisfied with what I have.

 

I don't know of one time that MSE scored good on AV testing since its first release. They scored quite decent some times, but underaverage most of the time..

 

Same here, and as long as the product I use continues to get certified (irrespective of actual detection/removal rates) I'll be happy to carry on with it.

On a side note, it's interesting to note the difference in FP rates between BullGuard and BitDefender.

EDIT: It's also interesting that the removal performance for a few products aren't really consistent with the results found in the AV-C removal test.

 

Thing is if you are happy with a product then why change. I dont really care about removal. if I ever got infected i would just restore a clean image or do a reinstall.

how well a product works on your system and how good the company are at adding new samples and dealing with fp's is what I look for.

there are two or three products I am happy to use and reccomend.

 

Looks like MSE is not even worth the little resources that it uses. I dumped it and installed Avast File System only module. Feels almost as light.

 

F-Secure did very well (2nd overall finish based on 'Repair' and 'Protection' categories).

ESET did surprisingly bad.

Is McAfee ever going to get good again?

MSE tied for first!! (in the 'Usability' category)

 

I can't belive MSE is that bad,I got dissapointed

 

Interesting that Trend Micro are at top,and same at AV-C .It also runs light here.Big change for them for the last few months now.Bitdefender and Kaspersky are always up there

 

So, it seems ZA AV+FW free remains the champ in the free category...Quite a few have gone downhill from what i can remember...

Panda Cloud's repair score is poor and its protection score have gone down as well...ESET has gone down further......AVG free has i think gone down in repair category....Mcafee too was better i think....

And MSE whoops! i am using it currently and probably a switch to ZA AV free is in order...

 

Tests like these are just tests - they do not reflect the real world situation. Much more important is the final results.

As for testing Microsoft products - Microsoft concept for antimalware protection is based on protection from different sources - there are Microsoft antimalware technologies built in Windows (UAC, Windows Firewall, SmartScreen filter for Windows, etc) , in IE (Protected mode, Enhanced protected mode, Smart Screen Filter for IE, etc), anti-spam in online and offline products. Other vendors rely on a single product - Internet Security suite that has all the technologies built into one thing.

In these kind of tests and in this one particularly, the tester compares full of features IS vs basic AV (e.g BitDefender , Kaspersky vs Microsoft). This is not correct. Have a look at the methods AV-Test uses and you'll notices that it does not check other MS technologies. But the suite is checked in its full features.

The reason MSE/FEP is so low on tests is the reason the tester does not test it correctly = does not reflect the real world situation. If you test default Windows 7/8 with MSE/Def , if they count MS Win firewall, Smart Screen and other security features, results would be totally different. In real world , "counting" these features actually means the user is protected - this is most important.


Being that high in tests (protection and overall score) doesn't make you The Best. BitDefender, Kaspersky, GData , FSecure - all top but I wouldn't use or recommend them - some of them get high FP, they are too heavy on resources. Compare them to some vendors with lower *test* results - AVIRA, ESET, Microsoft, Avast - they are less resource hungry.
Security is not always 100% protection. Security is a mix of good protection and good usability.

I really love vendors that put max efforts in keeping zero/low FP rate - this is very important, too. FP can cause as much trouble as missed malware/attack.

Some people read tests, they see their vendor lower than expected and what happens is they switch to another. Next time, the same. This is very strange to me. Tests are just tests - lab. Real world situation can be totally different

 

Thanks er34
I agree with you.
MSE is not that bad in protection.
but....

these additional protection you mentioned,dont they cooperate with other antiviruses?
I mean,these layers are the same in all system(using win 7/8 ).doesnt better antivirus core mean better protection?

As I complained in the MSE topic,I don't know why MSE can not pass any single test correctly
Their protection against "Zero Day"s is not good.
AV-TEST confiremd what MRG Flash Tests say.
Although I realy like the microsoft's antivirus,I think I should change it to other free alternatives and this makes me sad.

 

I'm happy with Norton, that I'm using right now.

Webroot keeps getting better, even if some people don't want to see it. Needs to improve repair. Notice its average slow-down of the computer: 1, when industry average is 10

 

Totally agree with the above

 

I don't like Checkpoint but their free version of ZA did well.

 

AV-Test Results

-Great results for Bitdefender, F-Secure, and Kaspersky.

-Check Point ZoneAlarm Free was the Best Freeware.

-Not good results for Avira, Panda, and McAfee.

-Bad results for Microsoft and ESET.

 

Bitdefender

 

MSE just keeps getting worse and worse! I pity the people who use it and *think* they are protected...so sad...

 

Seriously, those that argue that these tests don't refelct real world situation. YES you are aright, 100%. BUT, no test can reflect real world situation. Tests is all that we have. I go to school and tests still don't reflect how good of a doctor, nurse, teacher I am going to be. But tests give you an idea where a product stands.
For obvious reasons products that scored the lowest are probably not very good products. I agree that AVs that scored the highest might be very resource intensive but then you don't have to get them. Those in between that got average score of 4/6 such as Avira, AVAST, etc are very good products that are not as resources hungry and still give good protection. Most notably AVAST has a history of being consistently good for the past couple of years.

And so I got rid of MSE, and installed AVAST basic File system protection. Couldn't have been happier.

 

Couldn't agree more, especially with real world analysis and resource requirement. Its not always about 100% protection.

 

i see that you have returned to using BDIS2013 after using KAV2013+OAFree
is the present setup faster/more responsive than the previous?
did they solve the problems that you were having?(slowdowns in browsing)

 

I am running Bitdefender AV PLUS 2013 and it is running great on my older system with out issue, surfing is fast and no problems surfing while doing a full system scan.

 

yeah but look at your set up. 3.4Ghz core 2 duo, 4GB RAM. of course that you will not have any problems. I got 1.5Ghz core sole, my CPU would get crash and burn.