AV-Comparatives Heuristic / Behaviour Test 2014

Greetings,

the yearly AV-Comparatives Heuristic / Behaviour test is online.

Enjoy

-http://www.av-comparatives.org/retrospective-test/

 

Avast not there ?

 

"This test is currently an optional part of our public main test-series, that is to say, manufacturers can
decide at the beginning of the year whether they want their respective products to be included in the
test."

Obviously Avast chose not to be tested for it.

 

Don't get why Avira didn't participate.

 

Thanks for the share!

 

Thanks

 

agreed was a bit disappointed to not see them included

 

Maybe they did participate, but decided not to get their scores published. This way they check their sofwtare, but they don't make the results public.

 

If they did participate, and the results were good then they would surely publish them - AV companies like to blow their own trumpet. However, if the results were bad ...................... (just a thought)

 

no, they must decide this beforehand. We do not allow this afterwards.

 

When will we se Webroot in test again, any news on that front ?

 

It should be noted Lavasoft and Forticlient results here displays what is most likely referred to by AVC as proactive generic protection (page 6). This is probably the best that can be expected from free software.

"Cloud Based Behavior Scanning" is present in Fortinet's Managed Client.¹

Lavasoft's Ad-Aware "Advanced Protection" is provided in Pro Security and Total Security.² I question their decision in volunteering the free version in a test so heavily weighted by the feature-laden sets of their competitor's full-blown $uite$. But then perhaps we should appreciate such boldness in light of those who chose not to submit their free versions at all or even their paid versions (ahem, cough, cough), Avira and Avast.

Obviously, the bar is raised given the enhancements provided by proactive heuristic and/or behavioral protection.

I don't know if Tencent is free. But, who cares?

¹ forticlient-admin-50.pdf
² http://lavasoft.com/products/ad_aware.php

Cheers.

 

Why would you want Webroot in a test again?

Every time Webroot is tested, the Webroot Kool-Aid drinkers whine and cry and make excuses.


.

 

Yes, but they can still get tested right? So, they simply decided not to publish the results even before the test was done, but they still participated. Considering they are still working on NG technology i somehow understand why they have decided to do so.

 

@ FtP Because I am a curious kind of gay

 

I don't think so..
The way I understand it is that they must agree to have their results published regardless of how the software does, good or bad, in order to be tested at all.

 

Yes that's how I understand it too.

 

Thanks for the post...

 

@IBK May I ask why so many vendors are not being tested as the list is getting short? And this not about Webroot SecureAnywhere and most of us know why they don't get tested anymore. I'm just very Curious about it looking at the 2013 test and now the 2014 test.

Thanks,

Daniel

 

same here the list continues to get shorter and shorter it seems each year. i was really hoping to see a few that are absent.

 

I don't think so. I think they have to decide whether they want to publish the scores before the test is conducted. If they say NO and they score the best of all participants, they can't publish them even though they were the best out of everyone. Or, if they say YES and they score super poorly, they still have to publish the scores. This way you can't have only nice scores. But if you're unsure about the uutcome, you can say no and not be published at all, but you can still be tested for your own internal reference. I see no reason why saying "don't publish our scores" means they don't have the right anymore to be tested. But that also removes their right to use the obtained scores for anything but their internal company use.

 

I don't think that it works like this. If this would be true Symantec would probably still have their software tested. I guess we'll have to wait @IBK to clarify.

 

ESET 90%

Emsisoft 85%

 

Sometimes it's necessary to explain the self explanatory to those who find conspiracies everywhere..............

 

Rejzor is correct. (although it is not the case for this specific test, we do indeed test internally some more products; also from some vendors that some people think that they do not want to be tested).
@ zfactor: this kind of test is likely one of the most difficult to pass. Some may have decided to do not get the trouble of getting embarassed by results that they can't even remotely predict/guess, or they know to have FPs and would fail due to that, or do not have an effective behavioral proactive protection and rely more on cloud blacklistings, some marketing/vendors may not want to take part in any test where results are likely to be under 99% (or worse than their main competitors), etc. There can be many reasons; to users such reasons may be told a bit differently (e.g. unimportant test, wrong/biased test, forgot to participate, etc. or in other marketing language that puts/keeps the product in good light).
Kudos shoudl go to the vendors that are not heavily marketing-driven and who participate publicly in tests (even if they know that their product may still need some further improvements and use the feedback/results to improve their product and/or to see what area needs to be fixed [internal testing does not give vendors as much feedback as if participated publicly]).