AV-C On-Demand Comparative Test

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Cloud, Apr 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cloud

    Cloud Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,030
    Location:
    United States
  2. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Thanks for the information.:argh: But what's wrong with ESET?High positive rate!!It shouldn't be.:'( :( :ouch:
     
  3. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    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.
     
  4. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,737
    Location:
    New York City
    Very solid performance by Microsoft. Better detection than Symantec with only one FP. Unusually high number of FPs for Eset.
     
  5. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    :thumb: Avira
     
  6. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,854
    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. :thumb:
     
  7. Sher

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Great result for F-Secure (achieved 2nd). :)

    LOL@Norton!!! :D
     
  8. Narxis

    Narxis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Posts:
    477
    Why so serious abot Symantec vs. free AV'so_O?

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

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    McAfee = 0 FP. Wow!!! :eek:
     
  10. Sher

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I am so happy that I made a great decision by dumping Norton for F-Secure. :)
     
  11. sm1

    sm1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    520
    Mcafee 0 FP surprise:D Intel must have made Mcafee better;)
     
  12. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    817
    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.
     
  13. Sher

    Sher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Posts:
    366
    Location:
    Pakistan
    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.
     
  14. flaubert71

    flaubert71 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Posts:
    45
    Sunbelt Vipre not tested....bad!!!:thumbd:
     
  15. Cloud

    Cloud Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,030
    Location:
    United States
    :blink: Wow, Mcafee, slightly surprising results...still lost to the freebies though.
     
  16. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Bitdefender also did very well.;) :thumb: :thumb:
     
  17. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    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.:D

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  18. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    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!
     
  19. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    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.
     
  20. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    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.
     
  21. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    those are all very good points RejZor.
     
  22. 3x0gR13N

    3x0gR13N Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Posts:
    754
    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. ;)
     
  23. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    It's not too bad, it's average. But I agree it should have been lower indeed. :(
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2011
  24. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Ireland
    Considering Symantec's improvement with the latest RAP results, I was not expecting this result for Norton.

    Still, this is not the real world.
     
  25. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.