AV-C Performance test June

The new performance test is out, this time they tested the internet security suites versions:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/performance-tests

 

No MSE. It figures, it would be among the slowest...

Consistent good result from avast! as well.

 

congrats to webroot.

Results are actually so close you won't notice a big difference among the top av's I guess.

Eset would still be my favorite av. Used it for a long time and it's still top notch!

 

Unlike sponsored reviews which test manipulated, irrelevant and unbalanced metrics, AV-C has resisted the fad and decided to do the right thing. I want to applaud AV-C for doing this and I hope they keep this up!

 

I agree - this level of intelligence in testing can only be achieved by a testing company that knows about malware and system performance.

 

they test only suite in this case e M$ haven't suite

as said before what is important in this test is not the final result but what pbust report here
Some good software start with the OS, others no and let you infect

Congrats to WSA and the others good suite starting with OS : AhnLab, Avast, AVG,
Bitdefender, Panda, Sophos

 

i really do not belive more on AV-comparatives test!!
I used to belive, but not anymore.

 

Can you say why not?
It is one of the best testing org. If not the better

 

I believe MSE got Advanced+ on the last performance test...perhaps they opted out for other reasons such as transition phase with new version.

 

Can I confirm that panda cloud is also loaded early on start up?

 

as I said (could be my poor english I don't know why but today people seems not been able to read) and you can easy check opening PDF page 3 chapter Introduction and see:
" .....are intended to give only an indication of the impact on system performance of the various Internet Security Suite product in this specific tests

Microsoft don't have a suite so ... is out

 

Oh right...of course! My bad. Doh!

I was just responding in defense to MSE because performance is certainly one area they often excel in...other than the "open folder full of exes issue".

 

Yes you can.

 

Woah, nice quote pbust.

 

yes we can

thanks for the answer

 

I don't care much for performance tests, as the worst AVs tend to end up at the top.

 

I'm glad I no longer care about such tests,

SSD drive and sandboxie.

----

But, still some very good performers - I agree that there isn't much at all between the top ones.

 

So in your opinion, PC Tools Internet Security 2012 is one of the best antivirus suites?

In reality, most antivirus suites are quicker than they used to be for sure. Even Kaspersky has scored well on the performance test for the second year in a row - when traditionally it was slower than other good AVs. Webroot, Avast, ESET, Avira, F-Secure, Panda, Kaspersky - all scored at the top of the heap. All good AVs.

The performance tests are great - not everyone is a fanboy who tries out every security product. Some people just want to have a rough idea what kind of performance hit they'll have using a particular piece of software. Sometimes I think the performance tests are MORE useful than detection tests.

 

Finally read the report...

A BIG CONGRATULATIONS to Webroot. This is now what...the SECOND time they've shined in AV-Comparative's performance test! This time, they are literally on top, with a whopping 99,8 points out of 100...barely any performance impact at all!

For me, personally, this confirms the validity and reliability of the Passmark Performances on Webroot.

 

...yes but look at the little differences. So we talk about the x behind the 99, in PC Mark Test. Realizing in real life
This test shows that there are quite a few products which perform at the same level and some perform not so good. Thats all. If you are 1st or not is not the main ponit.

Let's see how Webroot performs in next WPDT rounds and in FP tests.

 

True, but if your fave product was on top you'd likely be cheering to.

I've seen performance tests in which Webroot is WAY ahead...like BY FAR...

 

Upon what do you base that conclusion?
Regards,
Jerry

 

im not sure about these tests accuracy , in fact it looks a bit weird

i assumed kaspersky would kiss the depth of scorelist of performance test.

but now that i see placed in the middle.. weird for me. they mean faster than bullguard ?

not acceptable.

i suppose kaspersky can cause freezing even the supercomputers.
worse than malware itself


im the one who installed both of em bullguard and kaspersky . and know their performance.

even i did test sophos and for example the scan time was a nightmare , it would almost take a year to scan a file

 

Do you want to discuss the products tested and their results or just bash Kaspersky?

 

i actually kind of agree kaspersky is one of the heaviest i have used of late not ram wise but it just slows the responsiveness of opening things and downloads etc. i have a bullgaurd lic and i can say from my tests bullgaurd "feels" a lot lighter though kaspersky is not the heaviest i have used either