Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by IBK, Nov 22, 2013.
-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.
It is still Avira V13 tested, it will be interesting to see if the next results with V14 improve as with AV Comparatives.
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.
Kaspersky performance impact 0... Yeah, right. Much improved, indeed, but 0? No. Just no.
Has Webroot opted out of AV-Test now as well or is this just restricted to Windows XP?
Excellent results for Comodo. Only free product that achieved 100% detection & 100% protection. Low FP. Improved a lot. Keep improving Comodo.
Perfect score to Kaspersky
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.
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.
As usual the top players are dominating these tests.
Wondering what happened to Avast!.
I think it's just overrated? Well done Panda! Better results than other free AV.
Actually, Comodo has better protection score.
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 ...
F-secure has better performance test results than ESET
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.
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
The performance results on several products is a bit
Yes Comodo Antivirus still available.
ZA is simply using an older version than Kaspersky..
AV-TEST Product Review and Certification Report – Sep-Oct/2013
Check Point: ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + FirewallVersion Tested : 11.0
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.
These results need to be taken with a generous pinch of salt.
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 the same version  was tested in both quarters. Or, it may be that 2014 really is "streets ahead" of 2013.
Wonder if Panda is worth another look?
Oh boy !
Wrong thread !
I meant to post this on the AV Comparatives - Oct Thread.... https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=356169
Don't know if Mods can help by moving this to where it belongs?
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
Your conclusion is absolutely wrong.
Separate names with a comma.