AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test - November 2017

-----------------
https://blog.avira.com/avira-antivirus-pro-wins-av-comparatives-test/

 

Most users use AV with default settings. Testing AVs with default settings will show how specific AV would perform for most of it's users.

 

PUP is not included in the test; PUP detection is turned on (just to avoid false claims, as there is no PUA included anyway). The test is not done on old samples, but on fresh/current samples (some products may in fact reach high rates because the malware is so fresh, as they block files which they have not seen before).

 

fair enough, point taken.

 

You could probably run the same experiment sans AV and get the same result.

 

Marcos discounts the time when even this forum declared NOD32 as an anti virus only and recommended anti-trojan software at a time when Dr. web, BitDefender, AVIRA, Kaspersky, Symantec and McAfee had started expanding their capabilities to include Trojans. I believe Eset only got serious about these things in 2007, which was a couple of years behind the curve of the technology leaders.

I guess most of the years the pecking order has been similar - the only product I remember that went from being very mediocre to becoming very good is AVG. Obviously the merger has helped both Avast and AVG now.

 

Having used both I will say BullGuard is a far better tested and higher quality product on the whole. Obviously BitDefender engine is good but there are stupid design choices, unnecessary bloat and random recurring bugs on the BD product.

 

I only use AVP so there's no bloat with that, and for me it's been a fine product over the many years it's protection is top notch, Support lacks I will say that though.