AV-Test Jan/Feb 2014 results are out

Hahahaha everyones bashing Avast!
Good work to the top scorers as always and to the others they need to improve. Specially being consistent.

 

Tgell,evo-gen and safemachine 2 is already being used by avast.

Evo-gen,Filerep stuff is fully evolved by now I guess.Whereas,Safemachine 2 is still being improved continously.Dyna-gen is still work in progress.Although they are still adding safemachine 2 and dyna signatures off and on.

Also I had left the avast ship like 1 month ago when crapware was started to come in I just needed a good time to announce it

Anyway I will keep an eye on avast just in case they improve which I doubt they will.

 

@true indian, what is safemachine 2? And have you head anything about something called NG? It was mentioned on the avast! forum but some people said it could not be commented on.

 

good you least know that avast was using you all this time

 

come on Inside Out,gdata haves a good zero day protection i test it before so i know about it

 

No, I don't say they're wrong, I just say that their results are not in line with experience that I had with some of those AVs.

hqsec

 

These results along with the last AV Comparatives ones, show that Avira is back to what it used be a few years ago thanking the new Avira Protection Cloud which is available even with the free version:
http://techblog.avira.com/2014/03/06/avira-protection-cloud-free-antivirus/en/
At this very moment I'd say that among the free alternatives Avira is arguably the best in detection.

 

Do you have hard evidence to back your allegations ?

 

seems so

 

The hard evidence are the negative comments in different security forums especially what concerns the so called performance test having little or nothing to do with users' experiences. But I can accept it to some extent as the testing is within a limited time period, and some of the so called big players begin to exhibit performance issues and stability problems over time. A, and the users comments concerning performance and stability in the forums of the "leaders" in the performance test are also hard to ignore.
Waving out AV-test logos won't help in dealing with unhappy customers, they can only manipulate them in choosing a particular vendor not staying with it.

 

Way to go 360. I'm on day 3 of trying it out.

 

that's not an evidence. Telling that you heard couple of people on forums etc. is not enough for any type of conclusions to be made. At least for sake of Statistics - you should have at least 30 strongly confirmed examples of what are you saying etc. to make any statistically sound conclusion. Best example is myself - I bashed Bitdefender for my system beiing slow, when suddenly I realized that Windows for some f**ked reason started to boot not from SSD, but from HDD, so people on the forums are hardly reliable By this, I'm not advocating AV-test, but don't have facts to bash them either.

 

Yes, I'm probably too harsh but what is the hard evidence on the testing organization part - that we have to take their conclusions at face value? There are so many particularities in their testing methods and the hardware used that the results achieved are hardly evidence for any real life scenario. And yes, user experience varies but I think most people here at Wilders have developed an inner sense about vendor's performance and to what extent the expressed user experience at the forums are representative of the vendor's strong and weak sides.

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2354159&postcount=30

There are other examples if you compare the results.

 

Finally a clear and valid explaination:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=147986.msg1075601#msg1075601

Thanks Avast! team...hopefully in next couple of months everything should be back on track.

 

I'm not so sure if another explanation from staff can remove the bad taste of same scenario happening the second time already. And no one knows when it will be the 3rd time and so forth...

 

reminds me of this:
"Vendors should make sure that users are appropriately warned in the event that the connectivity to the cloud is lost, which may considerably affect the protection provided [...]. [...] users should be aware that being online does not necessarily mean that the cloud service of the products they use is reachable/working properly. In fact, sometimes products with cloud functionality have various network issues due to which no cloud security is provided, but the user is not warned. AMTSO has a rudimentary test to verify the proper functionality of cloud-supported products."

Cloud issues are encountered by several vendors various times during the year, sometimes even for very long periods without users getting ever notified about it.

 

Wait a second, why have avast! scores changed? It was 94 and 90 last time i checked and now it's 95 and 90. Hm...

 

Thank you. At least Avast team lets users know why it's scoring low recently. I hope they'll fix it soon. Otherwise I'll have to go one my PC to Qihoo.

 

Didn't Avast already use the backend issue as an explanation for bad results at earlier AV-Test reports?

 

Yes, they did.

 

Avast is fine...there are just a lot of critics that missed their therapy session this week.

 

Yes but it wasnt mentioned that this issue had a effect on the product for like 2 months and now everything slowly has come back to normal.

 

wait wait wait. Last time they/you explained under performance by evogen/ schmuckgen was not fully working and when it will start working, all roofs of all world av's will be off. What explanation will they use next time ? grimefighter was blocking cloud and allowing viruses ?

 

Well said! I prefer free AV software without all the junk!

It's getting ridiculous: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=147648.0