AV Comparatives has released the newest report.

It might be the 1st test by AV Comparatives but surely they must run similar tests themselves?being the 1st test by an independent testing company is no excuse for any product having a dismal detection rate or a high no of false positives:-these should be sorted out by the product development team who shouldn't rely on outside testing to know if their product is performing as it should

 

Ok,got it.Now,do i have to say that you're maybe right?

 

lol it seems so

 

I'm so happy about Avira's performance, I'm buying a second license on the spot: they deserve it.

 

Damn...and i was so happy and anxious to install TM Internet Security,one year for free....brrrrrr,glad i didn't do it

 

Ok,you're right.I said it!

 

Some of these reporting pretty different from "smaller" tests I've done in the past.

Interesting I suppose. Still not sold on Panda and they don't really rate the kind of system load these take. My experience ranks G Data pretty heavy on the system if I remember right.

Still sticking with my Kaspersky. In MY tests, it has performed the best.

 

The tests you posted were not On-Demand tests. They were prevention tests. This test by AV-Comparatives is On-Demand. Meaning they put the malware in a folder and scanned it with the different engines. The prevention tests will almost certainly give different results.

 

Anyone knows if there's much difference (detection wise) between Panda Antivirus Pro 2010 and Panda Cloud Antivirus?

 

Great results for MSE!

Kaspersky has got some catching to do still!

eScan is awesome with just 1 FP! They need to work on their scanning speed!

 

Panda without cloud didn't get a good score.

 

It includes Symantec engine now. "packdata_ci_sd_7.0.0.514_en_setup.exe" is downloaded from google pack

 

Congratulations Panda

 

sorry to be a kill joy, but wasnt these types of tests completely squashed in recent times?

 

Some surprises there.

>> McAfee almost at the top for detection. Needs to improve on FPs. But considering the test size, and the FPs given, all products (except for K7 didn't do so badly).

>> PC Tools's spyware doctor, who would have thought huh? Low FPs, detection rates right up there. Just need to improve on scan speed. If someone on here has spyware doctor in their signature, might not be frowned upon now.

>> Well done to Avira. Not the FP king in this test, and their product, and support speaks for itself.

>> Panda, the good ol friendly bear icon does have some power in it after all.

>> Microsoft, for a freebie, and new to the scene, great work. Let down in detecting script malware. Improve that, and it's right up there. Users with firefox noscript, sandboxie etc will find it to be A+ in terms of ease of use, compatibility, low FPs.

>> ESET, Kaspersky, Symantec solid results, ensure your novice users are protected with minimal fuss. Add F-Secure, Avast and Bitdefender to the list. E-scan, haven't used it, but good results also.

I'd say 1. G-Data, 2. Avira. Take scan speed into consideration, for user convenience, say scanning an external drive, Avira then on top.

 

Great summary, I enjoyed reading your thoughts. Has any new test actually been released with all the new products involved?

 

Hey raven,
HOw do you like just running Comodo?

 

with kaspersky users are better buying KIS rather than KAV:-they then get the added benefit of a HIPS module,they can disable the firewall if its not needed and price, in UK at least, is very little different:-I never understand anybody just buying KAV!

 

Saraceno, always relaxing to read your posts! Any ideas as to why Trustport is doing well but doesn't seem to be so popular (at least here at Wilders)?

 

Thanks! Missed that part. Appreciate the correction.

 

Very good summary there,spot on

 

I think the AV has really improved and I expect the FPs to be reduced with the next fix-release, together with recognizing more software in the white-listing. Now when running Avira it didn't detect the malware I tested with fully updated defs and heuristics maxed, same with COMODO and MBAM. Hitman Pro is the only one detecting the new malware the same day I tested it when it was at the first page at MDL.

EDIT: Tested setting COMODO's AV heuristics to High for Manual Scanning - no change, load.exe still goes undetected.

 

I liked the review matt gave over at malware.com. It was a good video and comodo caught everyone of the malware. Kinda made me feel like trying it out.

 

You seriously should, at least when it's fixed in the coming weeks or so - I bet it will be top-notch by then and hopefully able to be installed on novices' PCs.

 

So to sum up the results, basically all the AVs they tested are pretty solid.