AV-Test Certifications for the 1st Quarter 2011 (Windows 7)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by King Grub, Apr 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
    The test reports can be found here:

    http://www.av-test.org/certifications.php
     
  2. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I told you Bitdefender is getting ready to knock everyones socks off when it comes to protection. A 6.0:thumb: l
     
  3. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    checking it out :) thx for info
     
  4. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    I am a little bit disappointed with ESET's detection (happy with it's usability and repair though) however that won't be a reason for me to switch.

    Also I am quite surprised with the differences between the various testing results (AV-Test.org, AV-Comparatives and VirusBulletin) in terms of detection and also in terms of pc impact. To me it seems as that the results regarding pc impact of these tests (AV-Test.org) are more representative (i.e. conforming my recent experiences) than the results of AV-Comparatives.
     
  5. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Not sure why, but avast!'s results are weird. Not because they aren't at the very top but they just looks weird.
     
  6. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    glad to see norton and vipre doing well

    results bit contradictory for McAfee wrt to AV-C where it scored so well
     
  7. xorrior

    xorrior Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Posts:
    66
    BDIS 2011:1/15 defeated HIPS and the rest signatures or heuristics caught

    MalwareBytes ran afterwards:80 active signature detections

    Thanks languy99 ^^
     
  8. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    also , credit should go to norton and kaspersky & bit defender for scoring so high on Dynamic Detection where everyone have scored so low
     
  9. xorrior

    xorrior Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Posts:
    66

    And Sunbelt for having highest repair score, something that actually matters when you consider the demographic that buys mass-advertised security products like all the tested are.
     
  10. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255

    yeah , sure :) i am personally using vipre on one of my Pc and love it

    also ,, what i m surprised to see now is bit defender got 111 in performance ... for me it was always heavy ?? :eek:
     
  11. xorrior

    xorrior Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Posts:
    66
    BDIS 2011 did good with performance, comparatively speaking. I'm no sure what message it gives that their HIPS/Heuristics/Signatures scored highest on this test though, it didn't do too well in public testing under overly-modest conditions.
     
  12. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    nevis, honestly I have been running just the av on one computer and have found it is as light as avira. It really has me thinking but going to trial it a little longer.
     
  13. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Bitdefender and products with Bitdefender in them, have done well on 3 different testing sites now. I think that says something, and dont get me started on people who test at Utube:cautious:
     
  14. QBgreen

    QBgreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Posts:
    627
    Location:
    Queens County, NY
  15. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    thx for ur input

    I guess , i can give it one more go to see how it does now :)
     
  16. xorrior

    xorrior Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Posts:
    66
    Good thing about "utube" is you can instantly get the same result with the same sample. Where here it's all done privately by a commercial subsidiary. Not sure what you'd use to discredit(compatibly speaking) purely open independent testing to this..
     
  17. Essentials

    Essentials Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Posts:
    49
    Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 scores are veeery low. I am starting to think of changing my AV, maybe try f-secure 6 months free license......
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2011
  18. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Usability = Average Slowdown + False Positive

    If we consider 100-200 as the optimal limit of slow-down by Antivirus, then,
    light AVs are,
    Vipre = 74
    Trend Micro = 79
    ESET = 91
    eScan = 97


    & Heavy AVs are,
    Bullguard = 539
    Norman = 272
    CA = 232


    If we consider 10 to 20 as the average False positive limit, then,
    AV's with low FP are,
    Avast = 1
    MSE = 1
    Sophos = 2
    Bitdefender = 5
    CA = 6
    TrendMicro = 7
    F-Secure = 7
    BullGuard = 7
    G-Data = 8
    ESET = 9
    AVG = 9


    AV's with high FP are,
    Norman = 39
    McAfee = 34
    Comodo = 29
    Vipre = 24
    Webroot = 21
     
  19. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Different with AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org
    McAfee
    FP = 0 (AVC)
    FP = 34 (AV-Test.org)
     
  20. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    lol :D

    complete opposite

    also similar for avast too
     
  21. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    I'm doing that now...smooth so far!
     
  22. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    791
    Location:
    India
    As expected, Comodo scored well on dynamic test. (post execution of malware tests).

    But, i'm surprised with Avast post execution of malware...looks strange to me...especially with the case of v6.0
     
  23. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    Why exactly?
     
  24. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Because of sandbox and Behavior Shield. Of course they still aren't perfect but they'd at least cought something...
     
  25. harsha_mic

    harsha_mic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    791
    Location:
    India
    Avast had Behavior shield for long time now and never really seen it in action. But, lately with Avast 6.0, 1-2 weeks ago, when i've tested Avast, i have seen Avast picking up almost (85%) all malware (from MDL) with pre-execution and atleast half of the remaining on post-execution with their sandbox/behavior sheild concept.

    So, i think its pre/post execution looks to be confusing. And sadly Eset scores are also not encouraging.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.