AV-Test Windows XP Test Results

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by IBK, Nov 22, 2013.

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

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
  2. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
    -Well done Avira.

    -Avast and Eset again look heavier than they are (and not even with new versions).

    -Like on AVC, Panda improving. But how G-Data keeps getting 6/6s while it does very poorly on the former is beyond me. Maybe AVT counts user-dependency as a straight detection?

    -Norton slipping a bit.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
  3. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,220
    It is still Avira V13 tested, it will be interesting to see if the next results with V14 improve as with AV Comparatives.
     
  4. smage

    smage Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Posts:
    377
    Excellent results for Comodo again.

    Can't wait for the new Avira with APC to be tested.

    Results are still not good for Zone Alarm, TrendMicro doing well as in AVC.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
  5. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    Tejas
  6. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
    Kaspersky performance impact 0... Yeah, right. Much improved, indeed, but 0? No. Just no.
     
  7. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,071
    Location:
    Germany
    Has Webroot opted out of AV-Test now as well or is this just restricted to Windows XP?
     
  8. Yash Khan

    Yash Khan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    1,837
    Excellent results for Comodo. Only free product that achieved 100% detection & 100% protection. Low FP. Improved a lot. Keep improving Comodo.
     
  9. Pain of Salvation

    Pain of Salvation Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    398
    Perfect score to Kaspersky
     
  10. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    I do wonder how the performance scores work with av test.
    eset 9 and kaspersky 0 ?
    I find it hard to believe that kaspersky is less resource hungry than eset.
    I trust the protection of kaspersky but I stopped using it due to the high resource usage and crashes.
    if you look at the corporate product results mcafee enterprize also scores 9 for performance and there is no way that eset is as heavy as mcafee enterprise.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
  11. malexous

    malexous Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Ireland
    AV-Comparatives Performance-Test (Suites) November 2013 and PassMark's 2013 Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks (over a year old) also show Kaspersky less of an impact than ESET.
     
  12. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    As usual the top players are dominating these tests.
    Wondering what happened to Avast!.
     
  13. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    894
    I think it's just overrated? :doubt: Well done Panda! Better results than other free AV. :)
     
  14. siketa

    siketa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Posts:
    2,695
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Actually, Comodo has better protection score.
    ;)
     
  15. Impet

    Impet Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    894
    I know but I only meant AV and not Internet HIPS Security. However, is their standalone AV still available?

    I really wonder why Zonealarm always has a poor protection score with Kaspersky engine ... :doubt:
     
  16. tomazyk

    tomazyk Guest

    F-secure has better performance test results than ESET o_O
    I don't know how they test them but that test is not showing the impact AVs are having on computer usage from my experience.
     
  17. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    I also think the performance tests are too artificial and don't really reflect the impact on regular user machines. As are the detection tests too easy.

    APC related improvements for Avira on detection will be first seen in the Nov & Dec combined results
     
  18. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    The performance results on several products is a bit :doubt:
     
  19. spywar

    spywar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Posts:
    583
    Location:
    Paris
    Yes Comodo Antivirus still available.
    ZA is simply using an older version than Kaspersky..
     
  20. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,094
    AV-TEST Product Review and Certification Report – Sep-Oct/2013
    Check Point: ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + FirewallVersion Tested : 11.0

    =
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=2303934#post2303934
    Someone said ZA had a bug.
    It should be fixed in v12.
    So, we should wait for the new results...

    ----
    ver 12 has already been released
    ---
    It is still not tested so we do not know if the problem is fixed or not.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2013
  21. century

    century Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Posts:
    92
    These results need to be taken with a generous pinch of salt.
     
  22. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
    @ Noob
    o_O

    Allowing, optimistically, that all user intervention achieves successful blocking, then Avast is consistently achieving 99 - 99.5% real world protection for all 2013 tests except April. [viz. 100, 98.7, 99.5, 99.5, 99.3, 99.1, 99.4, 99.1].....and, incidentally, EAM is also holding its own at 99.5 - 100% protection [100, 100, 99.8, 99.8, 99.8, 99.8, 100, 99.8].

    The real surprise is the "huge" improvement in Avira and Panda between the lack luster performances mid year, to the recent August/Sept/Oct results.

    Panda: 97.9, 98.0, 97.7, 96.9, 97.4, 99.8, 100, 100]
    Avira ; 98.3, 98.2, 97.5, 97.4, 97.4, 99.3, 99.7, 99.8]


    In the case of Panda it may be that version 2.2 [and now 2.3] is really sooo much better than the earlier 2.1.1. In the case of Avira, I'm not sure, as I think :doubt: the same version [2013] was tested in both quarters. Or, it may be that 2014 really is "streets ahead" of 2013.

    Wonder if Panda is worth another look? o_O

    -cheers,
    feandur
     
  23. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
  24. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,728
    Location:
    localhost
    Not really, comparable to current enterprise version (looking at key drivers). At this point my only conclusion is that Kaspersky is providing to OEM a very weak engine as the difference is too large. Interesting strategy from KAV side: you pay for it but forget to get the real deal. LoL :D
     
  25. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,094
    Your conclusion is absolutely wrong.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.