AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - February 2018

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by PEllis, Mar 15, 2018.

  1. PEllis

    PEllis Guest

  2. ProTruckDriver

    ProTruckDriver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    1,227
    Location:
    Stand Up For Your Country
    Wow look at Microsoft ~ 100%. :thumb:
     
  3. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    13,865
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Kaspersky "won" it again - 100% and 0 FPs.
    A lot of vendors got stuck at 99,5% :)
     
  4. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,354
    Use Microsoft and save your money, well done Microsoft! :thumb:
     
  5. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Kaspersky, Trend Micro, Microsoft and F-Secure all of them equally impressive!
     
  6. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,699
    I wouldn't say the are equally impressive. F-Secure had 14 false positives, which is a very bad result.
     
  7. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,239
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    I also agree, F-Secure has systematically produced too many FPs for years, for the average user it would be disastrous. Amazing results from Microsoft, I guess most companies are freaking out at its stellar performance.

    Companies like Bitdefender, Kaspersky have lately issued free versions of their programs probably in anticipation of the great performance of Microsoft. I just hope that by the time my current license expires, MS will have improved its system impact on some machines, my Samsung and Asus with i7 CPUs are definitely slower using it...
     
  8. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,699
    I hope they improve that too, but I have no idea if that is something Microsoft is going to work on. Aside from the performance issues, WD is proving to be a very good antivirus. If the performance issues were fixed, I would use it on all my computers.
     
  9. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,631
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Well, I personally never considered fp's as a real issue, at least not at the degree of importance other people put.

    On the other hand, I really applaud the work Microsoft is doing on computer security, they are steadily and silently improving this field. I wonder what their bashers will say now.
     
  10. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    8,390
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    I only notice any difference between Norton and Windows Defender on my slowest machine. I wouldn't say there is a huge difference there either, mainly waiting for installer icons to load in my Downloads folder.

    Well done Microsoft!
     
  11. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,699
    I consider them to be a big issue, as the average user will assume everything detected by their antivirus is an actual threat and will not consider that safe files may be wrongly detected and quarantined. Of course, more experienced users are not going to blindly believe that everything detected is a threat. But, it's still an annoyance when something legitimate is detected. What makes it worse, is that just about all security software these days, will automatically quarantine everything detected, rather than asking them what they want to do when a threat is detected.

    One more point is that, the more safe files an antivirus detects, the greater chance it could remove a needed system file and break Windows.
    They will always find something to criticise. The lack of performance, is my only complaint.
     
  12. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,239
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    +1
     
  13. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    866
    Location:
    California
    I'll say this is enough for me to never wanna touch Windows Defender, because I value my computer's performance (and this is not just from the graph below but from my and others' personal experience):

    AV_Comparatives_October_2017_Performance_Test.png
     
  14. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    6,489
    +1
     
  15. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,354
    +2
     
  16. amico81

    amico81 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Posts:
    94
    Location:
    Germany
  17. Buddel

    Buddel Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Posts:
    1,322
    I think they all did (and still do) a good job. They all blocked at least 95 percent of the malware thrown at them - good enough for me. With 14 FPs, however, F-Secure is the odd one out here. Today's AV are (almost) equally good as far as their detection rates are concerned (95+ per cent), but there are still striking differences as far as lightness and FPs are concerned. Just my two cents.
     
  18. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    8,786
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    +1

    THAT, right there is all is left what they need to remedy and I would go with WD throughout my own series of machines.

    In local testing they snatch up really very well and log then add the behavior it seems to a list of sorts. Not too shabby.

    Finally they put some magnetic force into WD against malwares. BUT, time for them to streamline it's performance code intelligently to bare minimum so it doesn't weigh so heavy on system performance energy.
     
  19. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    5,985
    Location:
    USA
    You've been fortunate enough that you have never had to format and reinstall a PC that was destroyed by a false positive. I've had to do so 5 or 6 times over the last decade. It's not a daily problem, but one that should never happen. In almost every case the product deleted system files that had been signed by Microsoft. Various AV products have done this so it is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed by any company that is detecting false positives. I prefer AV tests that subtract the false positives from the overall score.
     
  20. m0unds

    m0unds Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Posts:
    212
    in the last 10 yrs, i can think of a number of vendors whose av product trashed systems due to a bad sig update (panda, avg, avast, symantec, vipre, webroot, bitdefender) - how many of these products show low fps in regular testing? more important in this situation is release quality control and testing of new sigs.

    i've personally encountered two total FPs with the f-secure products i use, one website and one behavioral detection (due to low reputation, new file). "high" incidence of fps in a testing environment doesn't mean a user is going to encounter a ton of fps during normal day-to-day use.
     
  21. Eggnog

    Eggnog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    129
    Location:
    United States
    I feel pretty good now running WD and VoodooShield on this old desktop. Good job Microsoft. It doesn't feel sluggish, and it's no barn burner. This desktop an old AMD 965 BE with 4 gigs RAM. It doesn't appear noticeably slower to me that when I ran NOD 32 and Avast several years ago. Some people make it sound like WD will make your PC run like sludge but 3rd party AVs will make it run like a greyhound.
     
  22. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,699
    On a computer with a slow CPU, WD can cause very noticeable drops in performance at times. That has been my experience, on many computers. On the other hand, there are antiviruses which can slow down computers much more than WD does. But, for example, I find Panda, v11 of ESET products (not earlier versions) and Tencent to be considerably lighter than WD, with an absolute minimum impact on system performance, even with slower CPUs.

    One thing I've noticed with WD, is that if you have very little running in the background then performance will often be a lot better than if you have a lot going on.

    Your AMD CPU, is faster than the CPUs in any of my computers, and much faster than most of them.
     
  23. Eggnog

    Eggnog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    129
    Location:
    United States
    I tried Panda Free just to see how it did in comparison to WD. I noticed it didn't turn off WD. I thought that was sort of weird. Most AVs shut WD off.
     
  24. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7,699
    Something went wrong. WD should have been disabled.
     
  25. Eggnog

    Eggnog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    129
    Location:
    United States
    I might give it another go. I would really like to see if there is a difference.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.