AV-Test Results for Sep/Oct Now Available

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Thankful, Nov 22, 2012.

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

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,741
    Location:
    New York City
    http://twitter.com/avtestorg
     
  2. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Very much appreciated!
    Thanks! :thumb:
     
  3. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,741
    Location:
    New York City
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  4. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I'm satisfied with what I have.
     
  5. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,771
    Location:
    Outer space
    I don't know of one time that MSE scored good on AV testing since its first release. They scored quite decent some times, but underaverage most of the time..
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Same here, and as long as the product I use continues to get certified (irrespective of actual detection/removal rates) I'll be happy to carry on with it. :)

    On a side note, it's interesting to note the difference in FP rates between BullGuard and BitDefender.

    EDIT: It's also interesting that the removal performance for a few products aren't really consistent with the results found in the AV-C removal test.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  7. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Thing is if you are happy with a product then why change. I dont really care about removal. if I ever got infected i would just restore a clean image or do a reinstall.

    how well a product works on your system and how good the company are at adding new samples and dealing with fp's is what I look for.

    there are two or three products I am happy to use and reccomend.
     
  8. jo3blac1

    jo3blac1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Posts:
    739
    Location:
    U.S.
    Looks like MSE is not even worth the little resources that it uses. I dumped it and installed Avast File System only module. Feels almost as light.
     
  9. Frank the Perv

    Frank the Perv Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    882
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    F-Secure did very well (2nd overall finish based on 'Repair' and 'Protection' categories).

    ESET did surprisingly bad.

    Is McAfee ever going to get good again?

    MSE tied for first!! (in the 'Usability' category)
     
  10. phyniks

    phyniks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Posts:
    258
    I can't belive MSE is that bad,I got dissapointed
     
  11. waters

    waters Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Posts:
    934
    Interesting that Trend Micro are at top,and same at AV-C .It also runs light here.Big change for them for the last few months now.Bitdefender and Kaspersky are always up there
     
  12. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    So, it seems ZA AV+FW free remains the champ in the free category...Quite a few have gone downhill from what i can remember...

    Panda Cloud's repair score is poor and its protection score have gone down as well...ESET has gone down further......AVG free has i think gone down in repair category....Mcafee too was better i think....

    And MSE whoops! i am using it currently and probably a switch to ZA AV free is in order...
     
  13. er34

    er34 Guest

    Tests like these are just tests - they do not reflect the real world situation. Much more important is the final results.

    As for testing Microsoft products - Microsoft concept for antimalware protection is based on protection from different sources - there are Microsoft antimalware technologies built in Windows (UAC, Windows Firewall, SmartScreen filter for Windows, etc) , in IE (Protected mode, Enhanced protected mode, Smart Screen Filter for IE, etc), anti-spam in online and offline products. Other vendors rely on a single product - Internet Security suite that has all the technologies built into one thing.

    In these kind of tests and in this one particularly, the tester compares full of features IS vs basic AV (e.g BitDefender , Kaspersky vs Microsoft). This is not correct. Have a look at the methods AV-Test uses and you'll notices that it does not check other MS technologies. But the suite is checked in its full features.

    The reason MSE/FEP is so low on tests is the reason the tester does not test it correctly = does not reflect the real world situation. If you test default Windows 7/8 with MSE/Def , if they count MS Win firewall, Smart Screen and other security features, results would be totally different. In real world , "counting" these features actually means the user is protected - this is most important.


    Being that high in tests (protection and overall score) doesn't make you The Best. BitDefender, Kaspersky, GData , FSecure - all top but I wouldn't use or recommend them - some of them get high FP, they are too heavy on resources. Compare them to some vendors with lower *test* results - AVIRA, ESET, Microsoft, Avast - they are less resource hungry.
    Security is not always 100% protection. Security is a mix of good protection and good usability.

    I really love vendors that put max efforts in keeping zero/low FP rate - this is very important, too. FP can cause as much trouble as missed malware/attack.

    Some people read tests, they see their vendor lower than expected and what happens is they switch to another. Next time, the same. This is very strange to me. Tests are just tests - lab. Real world situation can be totally different :thumb:
     
  14. phyniks

    phyniks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Posts:
    258
    Thanks er34
    I agree with you.
    MSE is not that bad in protection.
    but....

    these additional protection you mentioned,dont they cooperate with other antiviruses?
    I mean,these layers are the same in all system(using win 7/8 ).doesnt better antivirus core mean better protection?

    As I complained in the MSE topic,I don't know why MSE can not pass any single test correctly
    Their protection against "Zero Day"s is not good.
    AV-TEST confiremd what MRG Flash Tests say.
    Although I realy like the microsoft's antivirus,I think I should change it to other free alternatives and this makes me sad.:oops:
     
  15. vojta

    vojta Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    I'm happy with Norton, that I'm using right now.

    Webroot keeps getting better, even if some people don't want to see it. Needs to improve repair. Notice its average slow-down of the computer: 1, when industry average is 10
     
  16. VectorFool

    VectorFool Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Posts:
    280
    Location:
    India
    Totally agree with the above
     
  17. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    I don't like Checkpoint but their free version of ZA did well.
     
  18. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    AV-Test Results

    -Great results for Bitdefender, F-Secure, and Kaspersky.

    -Check Point ZoneAlarm Free was the Best Freeware.

    -Not good results for Avira, Panda, and McAfee.

    -Bad results for Microsoft and ESET.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2012
  19. ViVek

    ViVek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Posts:
    551
    Location:
    Moon
    Bitdefender:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
     
  20. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    MSE just keeps getting worse and worse! I pity the people who use it and *think* they are protected...so sad...
     
  21. jo3blac1

    jo3blac1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Posts:
    739
    Location:
    U.S.
    Seriously, those that argue that these tests don't refelct real world situation. YES you are aright, 100%. BUT, no test can reflect real world situation. Tests is all that we have. I go to school and tests still don't reflect how good of a doctor, nurse, teacher I am going to be. But tests give you an idea where a product stands.
    For obvious reasons products that scored the lowest are probably not very good products. I agree that AVs that scored the highest might be very resource intensive but then you don't have to get them. Those in between that got average score of 4/6 such as Avira, AVAST, etc are very good products that are not as resources hungry and still give good protection. Most notably AVAST has a history of being consistently good for the past couple of years.

    And so I got rid of MSE, and installed AVAST basic File system protection. Couldn't have been happier.
     
  22. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

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

    Couldn't agree more, especially with real world analysis and resource requirement. Its not always about 100% protection.
     
  23. VectorFool

    VectorFool Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Posts:
    280
    Location:
    India
    i see that you have returned to using BDIS2013 after using KAV2013+OAFree
    is the present setup faster/more responsive than the previous?
    did they solve the problems that you were having?(slowdowns in browsing)
     
  24. the mul

    the mul Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Posts:
    1,703
    Location:
    scotland
    I am running Bitdefender AV PLUS 2013 and it is running great on my older system with out issue, surfing is fast and no problems surfing while doing a full system scan. :thumb: :D
     
  25. jo3blac1

    jo3blac1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Posts:
    739
    Location:
    U.S.
    yeah but look at your set up. 3.4Ghz core 2 duo, 4GB RAM. of course that you will not have any problems. I got 1.5Ghz core sole, my CPU would get crash and burn.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.