AV-Test.org: July / August 2013 - Windows 7

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by FleischmannTV, Sep 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,407
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    The test result pages said nothing like that.
    hxxp://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1%5Breport_no%5D=133194
    hxxp://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1%5Breport_no%5D=133133

    Do they say it somewhere else which I missed? Unless of course, it involves the usage of common sense, in which I'm lacking. :D It seems that you're right if that's the case.
     
  3. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    For ZA see below... :)

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2266474&postcount=84
     
  4. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,407
    Then re-read:
    -----------------------
    http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=133160
    Avast: Free Antivirus
    Performance
    in s =7
    Performance Score:3,0/6,0
    ---------------
    ---------------
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    I told you, there's nothing that explicitly says "lower values indicate better results" on the performance test results, only in usability results. The "in s (seconds?)" indicator is too blurry.
     
  6. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,883
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    "6 points of 6 points" is better than "0 points of 6 points" (and 6 is higher than 0). In case of the seconds taken, fewer seconds are better. That's how I interpret it.
     
  7. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,407
    They don't write test for idiots.......
     
  8. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,854
    Great job Comodo! Avast! did well, but I don't believe the performance results. It has always done well in performance tests. I don't see how ZoneAlarm did so poorly with Kaspersky's engine/sigs.
     
  9. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    I feel some how transparent, lol :D

    Read above post 28
     
  10. guest

    guest Guest

    Oh well, then AV Comparative test results are for the idiots because they clearly stated which higher or lower values mean better results. Okay Einstein... :cautious:
     
  11. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Then I better look at some other tests e.g AV-C that I fully understand :thumb:
     
  12. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,407
    I'm not Einstein, I'm not idiot.
    How about you?
    AV Comparative test
    --------------------------------
     
  13. guest

    guest Guest

    I'm a God. A God that even the Kings of Gods will bow down to me. :cool:

    BTW, no Emsisoft? :blink:
     
  14. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    No, Emsisoft doesn't currently participate in the tests by AV-Test, only AV-C at the moment (wich I personally think is enough) But the CEO said a while back that they maybe could join AV-Test next year.
     
  15. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
    It's about time. :thumb:
     
  16. larryb52

    larryb52 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    1,131

    not worth looking at the results are from throwing darts, there is nothing there in the report I believe is real...
     
  17. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    McAfee has performed respectably here.
     
  18. avman1995

    avman1995 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    944
    Location:
    india
    Actually I said that statement in context to Avast,if you look at result for avast it scored 100% when it came to detection of 4 week sample set which I feel is NOT true, I didnt mention Mr.COMODO anywhere if you read my words correctly,so dont assume :D

    We know both very well here,and none of here are fanboys so lets keep it like that.You have used avast,I use and have used COMODO.
     
  19. Anth-Unit

    Anth-Unit Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Posts:
    108
    Why does Kaspersky show up higher than NIS when you filter by performance, when NIS scored higher than Kaspersky? Or did I read the scores wrong?

    This scoring makes no sense to me. 94 out of 100 nets a 5.5 protection score which is the same as a 99 out of 100 protection score. Kaspersky and Symantec at 5.5. Microworld escan at 94 in the zero day column for one month sitting at the same 5.5 score.
     
  20. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
    Did you sort from fastest down to slowest (down arrow)? If I sort that way, NIS is above Kaspersky.
     
  21. Anth-Unit

    Anth-Unit Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Posts:
    108
    I sorted by protection, which given the zero-day score, NIS should be above Kasperesky.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  22. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
    When you filter by performance, NIS is above Kaspersky as it should be.

    Then Kaspersky should be below NIS, you are right. Yet I don't know if they are sorting a second time between products with the same protection score in points (5.5 for both), by going after the actual amount of missed samples.
     
  23. Anth-Unit

    Anth-Unit Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Posts:
    108

    It's probably a tie going by their scoring system, but if you look at the data, NIS clearly performed better.
     
  24. avman1995

    avman1995 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    944
    Location:
    india
    Yep! Sir....I actually have so many clients running avast and they never complained about its performance.But people here who claim to have issues,well,my opinion is that different PC's have different configurations so cant say without any further information from most complainers :D
     
  25. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    IMHO if you want to reply on these results restrict your choices to vendors who provide corporate products The profits they make there should improve the home ones.

    I realize this notion may wipe out some of your favorites.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.