AV-C Whole Product Dynamic Test Results - May 2013

I think it is possible that the chart is structured so that it visually exaggerates the differences in detection rates. The chart only shows the top 40% of detection rates, i.e., from 60% to 100%. If it showed the entire 100% from bottom to top, the small differences in detection rates would appear relatively smaller than they do in the chart as it currently exists.

Ehh, I could be wrong, but I think the differences between products would feel less if one got to see the entire chart starting at 0% detection and going up to 100%. Honestly, maybe that would give one a visual impression that better matched real world differences. I will see if I can make a chart like that and somehow load it up.

Really, there is a 6.7% detection difference from the top products to the bottom product in this test. Does that percentage difference really add up to anything in the real world? I have no idea. Having said that, I am sticking with products near the top of these and other tests.

 

True, if you graphed a 99% detection versus a 97% detection, the 0 to 100% graph would show them very comparable.

What if you did the same for the non-detected rate though, graphing only it?

A 3% non-detection rate (on a 97% detection rate) would be 300% the size of a 1% non-detection rate (on a 99% detection rate.)

Probably any anti-malware with high detection rates are good, as you stated. Any certified by AV-Comparatives are likely good to use, but if some show a trend, or consistently above or below others, it is information to weight in your decision to use one or another.

 

@ Vlk

Just in the context of my chart here , that if it does not score >=99% then it drops a category, and last test [march] Avast got 97.8%.... It would need to stretch / improve to stay at >99% in my chart this time around [coming test].

Are the chosen test categories both necessary and sufficient to perform a differential diagnosis of one true thing against another true thing....

.........maybe not.

It's [the 2013 data that I have access to] just a series of filters to see what green bottle is left on the shelf, what speck of gold is left in the pan after all is said and done with the data at hand.

A product that scores >99% in all these 2013 tests might be worth short-listing for personal trials. That's how I'm going to use these results....but each to their own poison.

-cheers,
feandur

 

kaspersky and trend micro do well in this month's test.

 

Excellent result for avast here

spywar has started testing avast again since yesterday massively and we have undergone some really great and sometimes weird result:

P.S. Spywar hope you dont mind me sharing your PM quotes,my friends

Thanks!

 

There is no denying that Kaspersky, Trend Micro, Bitdefender and Emisoft are producing consistently excellent results. As an Avira user I'm a bit disappointed with the outcome, although Avira is not consistently having bad results, it is comparatively bad in respect to others this month.

What does it mean in terms of missed 0 day malware? Out of 431 threats it got compromised with 11 (if my calculations are right), not a lot for 0 day, but still more than the leading group, which means something is definitely not working properly.

 

Avira

Compromised: Nov '12=0,4% --> Dec '12=1,6% --> March=1,7% --> April=1,8% --> May=2,5%........

 

fluctuate with their cloud protection

 

I tend to agree just when it refers to "dynamic" (Norton's favorite word) tests. I never cared a bit about it because of its questionable methodology IMO.
On-demand tests will always be my preferred ones.

As a side note, I can't do anything but give a good laugh every time some people quickly jump in to comment supposed "adverse results" of Avira...
Well

 

Avira should perform better and better to stop such sardonic comments

 

Just what I just said..

On-demand tests is the final answer. The Bible said... and AV-C got tired of Avira being always the #1 and created then the "dynamic tests"...

 

No problem, nothing really private here.

 

Great result for Symantec! I mean, if it were bad they would have been included in the chart...

 

vlk, AV Expert =

 

I do not think they are focusing on zero-day samples for this test. The Real-World Protection Test August-November 2011 mentions that they were not focusing on zero-day samples but later ones do not mention either way.

 

It does fit with your abrasive war against Avira doesn't it? For the record, as much as people can get poisonous for having a not so free lunch anymore, the difference between 2.5 % and say 1.6% is irrelevant, just a few (2-3 infections). On the other hand for people only using AVs as scanners, like I do, Avira still is tops.

 

It's the reality and they are the tests results.
If the reality bothers you, I can't do anything about it.

 

Guys,this thread is for AV-C and not for Avira

C'mon,guys avira hasnt been performing good for even once in AV-c dynamic test and then now you can give a excuse now if this happened off and on then I would accept everything people are talking about but not today and not in a condition where it has not faired well even once this time.

IMHO,I have tried Avira numerous times and in terms of stability it was a complete failure in my machine

Avira is not on top anymore...others are overtaking it atleast in the free market and in the paid market I think its pretty much the same.

Avira was good until v9 and then after that it turned into a nightmare

Just my opinion.

 

Hmm it would be good for AVG to add another layer of security for it to be more efficient against fake Avs and ransomware. We'll see what they add in the 2014 version, competition is getting touch these days especially with the success of Avast 8.

IDP stands for Identity Protection, it is a behavour blocker incorporated into AVG to deal with threats not detected by the AV.

 

What reality? the one that suits you, your are just a troll, and not a smart one for that matter.
@ true indian

Well what does it mean in plain English?

 

Hi I disagree with you!

To cope with the increasing number of threats, AV companies are deploying different technologies. Some have developed good heuristics like Avira, some are using reputational systems like Avast and Norton, some are using behavour blockers like AVG and Emsisoft, some have great website blocking abilities like Trend Micro, Kaspersky has HIPS, Behaviour Blocker and cloud.......

So dynamic tests are really important as they try to give a picture of how AVs will perform in the "real world", on demand tests are useful as if there is no detection there cannot be cleaning. But for assessing the prevention abilities of AVs, dynamic tests is the way to go.

 

I meant avira hasnt been performing good for some time now so no lame excuses about the test model,unless the product has had ups and downs in the test over a period you cant blame test models

 

I wouldn't bother.
For some reason, bickering over Avira scores in some threads has ended up in a forum tribal brawl over which test should give you the hardest AV E-boner.

 

The reality is one, everyone can see it except the Avira's fanboys......

Calm down fanboy.