Antivirus comparision @ Comodo

http://www.antivirus.comodo.com/comparison.html?currency=EUR&region=Europe&country=IS

I kinda found it funny..
Any comments?

 

ARE THEY NUTS?

 

That comparison table is already several months old - and it is completely wrong. I wonder why Mcafee or the others haven't sued Comodo yet for that.

 

Well we could arrange that right now

 

I don't have any statements for now till i find my voice back.

 

Comodo AntiVirus maybe better than KAV3.0, NOD32 1.0, Norton AntiVirus 2001 and McAfee VirusScan 7.0...

 

Umm.. almost *all* the crosses shouldnt be there!

 

Sorry but I can't help myself from laughing since you were - from what I've seen on your photoblog - " Executive Director of Comodo Security Inc. India "

They should have learned something, no?

GQ

 

Sorry I deleted the wrong post
I wrote this:

I got the answer from kalpik:

Ok, so doesnt the crosses mean that the other AV´s do not offer those techniques for free? I dont see them as Comodo claims that the other AV´s doesnt have those technicues and services, just that you have to pay for them. But maybe I got it all wrong. Or do you mean that the comparison is wrong because they do offer all that or some of it for free?

 

The crosses mean that those AV's DO NOT have that feature.. Which is etirely untrue!

 

Especially the fact that F-Secure, McAfee and F-Prot do not have unpacking is uhm... "very interesting". It would be also news to me that we do not have free technical support (as well as others too) And that we cannot scan removable drives... ...someone has to tell me please when we actually did remove this feature?!

 

So it seams that F-Prot is a bad choice regarding Comodo

 

Ok, it seems like there is a big missunderstanding here, either by you or me.
This is what it says on the page:

my bold.

Even though english is not my native language I read the bold as Comodo is saying that they have the same techniques as the other AV´s but they offer it for free. So to me the red crosses means that the competitor indeed has the technique but you have to pay for it (I guess after the evaluation period)
Maybe the statement "and more" is unlucky coz they dont list what the "more" consists of.

 

....and so few with an internal virus data base...what??

 

Bullshit. Then you should have LOTS of more red crosses if it was only during the trial period. This chart is supposed to highlight that CAV has all features (and even more as it claims in the first line) from all competitors and provides this solution "even" for free.

 

And here I just renewed my Bitdefender licence for the next 2 years...

All kidding aside(that includes the strange comparison table..) I use their firewall and like it so I downloaded and tried their AV to see.

For detection rate, I have no idea, but for scanning speed and memory footprint they still have alot of work to do.

During the scanning of my hard drive, memory footprint ran in the 100megs.
While not scanning, it used 35 megs. This could all be due to debug code though.

Scanning speed was alot slower than bitdefender(who, while not sluggish, isn't the fastest either)

What bothered me is that, no matter how I fiddled with the settings, I could not remove the process "cavasm" from memory at all, even though on-access scanning was turned off. Even when I chose *shutdown AV* from their launchpad, it still staid in memory... I had to uninstall the product completely for it to disappear. So that means that it's not useful as a on-demand scanner only as it stays in memory no matter what. Maybe the final version will correct that.

Can't argue with the price

Kin

Edit: fixed bittorent/bitdefender mishaps.

 

No need to get offensive. I meant after the trial period.

My point exactly, thank you. What I am curious about is what in the comparison is wrong?
Do the other AV´s offer all the red crosses for free? If they do I agree that they make false claims.

 

I’ve seen this table a long time ago. What a joke.


tD

 

Please dont mind IC!

Ill explain it to you. The crosses have nothing to do with trial version. Comodo claims that the other AV's do not have that feature at all (they are not saying that its not in the free version, they are saying that the feature is not present at all!)

Hope this clears things up for you.

 

Do you mean BitDefender?

 

I do only speak now for F-Prot: Even very old versions of F-Prot had runtime unpacking via static unpack (UPX etc) and via Emulation Unpack. So that F-Prot doesn't have runtime unpacking is completely wrong.

And we do not scan removabale drives? Makes me laugh...

And we do not have free technical support? Shall i go down and take a picture of the support team where everyone signs a letter that they doing this FOR FREE WITHOUT ANY ADITIONAL FEES which the customer would have to pay?

And this is "only" this what is wrong with the F-Prot comparasation. Go Figure!

 

Oops, yes, that's what I meant. Fixed in original post, thx.

Kin

 

Ok, I give up. I seem to have problems making myself understood here so I´ll leave it at this.
Peace.

 

We understand you! You dont understand us!

 

Hmm...Lets see. The chart in question is a comparison of product features, not of what features are offered comapred to the price. Even if you take into account the "free" versions of all the other AV programs (Trial versions or AVG free edition for example), even then most of the crosses are INCORRECT!

The chart is extremely inaccurate as far as features are concerned. All trial/free versions are able to scan runtime packed files! All AVs have a virus database and *every* vendor offers free technical support.