Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by King Grub, Apr 15, 2011.
The test reports can be found here:
I told you Bitdefender is getting ready to knock everyones socks off when it comes to protection. A 6.0 l
checking it out thx for info
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.
Not sure why, but avast!'s results are weird. Not because they aren't at the very top but they just looks weird.
glad to see norton and vipre doing well
results bit contradictory for McAfee wrt to AV-C where it scored so well
BDIS 2011:1/15 defeated HIPS and the rest signatures or heuristics caught
MalwareBytes ran afterwards:80 active signature detections
Thanks languy99 ^^
also , credit should go to norton and kaspersky & bit defender for scoring so high on Dynamic Detection where everyone have scored so low
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.
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 ??
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.
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.
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
For those of you impressed by BD's numbers, here's a good deal for BIS sold by MajorGeeks: http://store.majorgeeks.com/p11464-bitdefender_internet_security_2011_3-pc_1-year
thx for ur input
I guess , i can give it one more go to see how it does now
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..
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......
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
Different with AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.org
FP = 0 (AVC)
FP = 34 (AV-Test.org)
also similar for avast too
I'm doing that now...smooth so far!
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
Because of sandbox and Behavior Shield. Of course they still aren't perfect but they'd at least cought something...
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.
Separate names with a comma.