AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - March 2016

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anon, Apr 15, 2016.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
    AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - March 2016

    http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2016&month=3&sort=1&zoom=3

    http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2016
  2. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Kaspersky slipped on this test.
     
  3. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
    Kaspersky :eek:
     
  4. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    Shiver me timbers! :rolleyes:

    And when Trend takes care of FP's...solid option.
     
  5. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    ...yeah, less than 100% is totally unacceptable :rolleyes:
     
  6. chillstream

    chillstream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Posts:
    49
    Location:
    Croatia
    I'm surprised by Emsisoft's high FP amount. They usually don't have a problem with so many false positives.
     
  7. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    765
    Location:
    SW USA
    I just got around to noticing that with the February Real-World, Lavasoft's "free Bitdefender engine" Antivirus+ has finally been abandoned in favor of their Pro Security product, though it looks as if their internals could use some tweaking.

    Pro implements BD's major SDKs (BDCore/B-HAV, AVC and firewall/IDS). And it looks like its own Ad-Aware engine doesn't seem to contribute much in this class of testing.
     
  8. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    765
    Location:
    SW USA
    I think you're injecting a bit of humor into the discussion?

    I know you're surely aware of it, but this is an otherwise good excuse to remind everyone of AVC's own disclaimer: 100% "…does not mean…these…will always protect against all threats on the Web."

    As well, it could be argued most of these scores fall well into the good old "margin of error."
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2016
  9. Iangh

    Iangh Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Posts:
    611
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Where's Panda? Something happened?
     
  10. true indian

    true indian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    757
    Location:
    india
    Avira stronger than ever....avast slipped even further lol
     
  11. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
  12. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    Dependable F-secure :)
     
  13. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
    Dependable [Bitdefender] F-Secure....
     
  14. LagerX

    LagerX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Posts:
    540
    F-Secure has a very good home-made component called DeepGuard :)
     
  15. entropism

    entropism Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    F-Secure has been the most dependable, consistent AV for me, for the past few years. I went to ESET, Webroot, Norton, tried out Avira, keep going back to F-Secure. It's light as can be, saw no false positives with it (granted, I don't go hunting to test my AV), kept things nice and easy. All of Bitdefender's protection (coupled with their own Deepguard), without the buggines of running BD's software.
     
  16. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
    I don't remember Kaspersky finishing behind eScan, Vipre, AVG, and ESET.
    This hasn't been the pattern...
    Unless, you remember something different...:rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2016
  17. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    Exactly, Deepgurard is awesome.
    Its this layer above bit defender engine that makes it so powerful against 0 day malware. Its not perfect and you do get FP (personally I never encountered one).
    Best part is that its very clean. I installed it on my parents computer because it offers top notch protection without any confusing settings. UI is very simple too.


    Lastly, I miss Norton in these tests. :p
     
  18. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    Agreed. When I used F-secure, I tried out running some malware in a Virtual machine that has F-secure installed in it. F-secure may not be able to block the exe file via signature based detection, it successfully blocked the action of those malware when I tried to run them. However, the price tag is a bit high, so I went to Avira nowadays.
     
  19. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    765
    Location:
    SW USA
    I may stand to be corrected, but I don't think F-Secure implements BD's Active Virus Control SDK. Or their Nimbus cloud scanning and filtering services.

    Check to see if you have avcuf32.dll and avcuf64.dll. If not, you are not getting "all of Bitdefender's protection."

    There is considerably more to BD Internet Security than the decade-oldie but still goodie BDCore and B-HAV scanners known as the "Bitdefender engine." And BD's cloud is among the best there be.

    Which just goes to show how rockin' F-Secure is.

    I had strongly considered F-Secure as the only other choice recently. But I snagged a 3-PC 1 year license for $20 which I can extend in June the free six month non-bugginess BDIS trial I'm running now on my desktop (and replace MSE/WFW on the laptop). Money talks. Though next year I'll be shopping again.
     
  20. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    :thumb:
    You know what I did there :rolleyes:, no one should expect to see 100% all the time, even if Kaspersky indeed has showed 100% in the tests for a long time, till now.
     
  21. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    895
    Do you mean Ad-Aware Free doesn't use Bitdefender engine any more? :doubt:

    Well done AVG, it's better than Avast with all the ridiculous shields and modules. :geek:

    Sophos is somewhat disappointing ...
     
  22. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
    Falling behind eScan, Vipre, AVG, and ESET
    is the issue for me; not the less-than-100% result!!!
    Clear enough? I hope so.
     
  23. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    hahaha Those selfish fanboys. Is just a joke.

    You need a better dose of AV-Comparatives:

    http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/statistics/somestats.pdf
     
  24. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Why do you see that as an "issue" exactly ?

    To NOT fall behind the vendors you mention, it means that they too would have needed to get a lower score in order for Kaspersky to stay above them. Do you expect other vendors to get a lower score only because another vendor (Kaspersky) gets a lower score ?

    To be honest. I thought you were joking and being a bit sarcastic with your first post which was the only reason I responded to it. But it seems you were rather serious, my mistake I guess.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2016
  25. atunis5804

    atunis5804 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Posts:
    36
Loading...