Blatant lies by ESET

http://www.eset.com/products/comparison/

What are they smoking. They should be sued for this. This is just blatant lying to the public.

 

wow, yeah im wanting to know where all this 'Data' came from .

 

I see nothing wrong with it? It's just advertising! And they all do it!

TH

 

I agree. This just looks like standard marketing practice to me.

 

At least half of these can be tested/verified, so no problems.

eg.
Resource usage can be checked by installing each on same machine.
VB100 awards can also be verified.
Boot time can also be verified by installing each on same machine.

Proactive detection, false positives, proactive detection awards can vary, depending on the sample. Given it's a smaller company, comparing to the biggest seller of AV security software, I don't think millions will see this and be persuaded. Just some marketing, as posters have said above.

 

It just seems to me that Eset is scared. Otherwise they would not just target one company they would target them all. I'm starting to think there users are jumping ship and moving to another AV, with all there issues with Windows 7 it's just not worth the hassle to some people. I know I dropped them because of Windows 7 Issues that just seemed to never get fixed. My Renew ended they still had problems money went elseware, guess it's just the way of the beast.

 

They aren't targeting one company. You can change the company by clicking on the menu.

 

Really? IIRC they have had similar marketing pages since version 2. I thinking people are reading too much into this, it's just a marketing tactic. Alot of companies do it.

 

No,this ad is against Symantec.It was Symantec who first did exactly this type of comparison (for NIS 2009)

http://www.symantec.com/norton/products/charts/competitive.jsp (Take the challenge button)

 

Looks like normal marketing to me.
Be careful. Unless you know the research used is false, your comments are more outrageous than the ESET ad.

 

You should be an attorney.

Although I must admit the Vista sp2 issue ticked me off and I no longer use ESET. I think your sincerity is little less than sincere. Am i right? You just looking to take a cheap shot? You should be a politician.

It has a drop down box. You can choose comparisons between NIS, F Secure IS, KIS, Mcafee IS, AVG IS against ESS or Nod32. Look at it again. Nearly all of the vendors do this in some way or another. Your just confused.

Nice try fellas, but you gotta come up with something more juicy than this to give them a black eye.

 

If you can disprove the assertions presented in their advertisement, by all means do so. Otherwise, what you wrote is just blatant name calling.

 

This comparison must be true bcoz the are giving proof tooo.
just move ur mouse to that '?' symbol. U will get that site.

 

They use AV-Comparatives and VB for a few of their claims. Last time I checked both are good sources. Not to mention it doesnt say what version NIS they are using or against what definition. It may all be true, atleast 3 of the 6 are.

 

yeah,i am ready to uninstall NIS from my system..............norton is no good....

anyways,eset should focus on improving their development cycle.........which takes good 4-5 yrs to churn out new versions....

 

Well haven't this comparsion sites been around for ages?

Eset have just re-design the site to look more flashy I think.

Here are the old pages.

http://www.eset.com/products/compare-NOD32-vs-competition.php

http://www.eset.com/products/compare_heuristic_detection.php

http://www.eset.com/products/eset_performance_advantages.php

 

It's just a deceptive ad suggesting that those numbers are objective.

Seriously, AVG's detection rate was only slightly lower than Eset in these tests.

I think it's unethical. I wonder if Eset could be sued by the other AV vendors.

 

It's certainly not "puffery", which is the legal term for advertising which isn't intended to be taken literally (for the full break down of this, see Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256). ESET have gone above and beyond many vendors, and list the specific test that each bracket of results comes from and occasionally ESET doesn't come first.

Having said that, some of the test results are utterly bonkers. McAfee doesn't use anywhere near 973mb of RAM when idle - god knows who did that test and how they got that result. Not really ESETs fault though.

 

It's marketing yes and the claims are true but they're taking data from like 2008 according to themselves..

They're hand picking from a pile of data and presenting it, it's not illegal but for an advanced user it's on the grey zone for sure.

Simon

 

None more so than Symantec themselves,some folks have a really short memory it appears.

 

Of course, yes, the results will be picked to reflect ESET's greatest strengths and the opponents worst weaknesses. However, all consumers should do their research and homework.

Caveat emptor.

 

i hate this kind of marketing and eset products don't seem to me to be as effective or as light as a couple of years back. stick with what works best for you and eset runs like a dog on this pc...

 

Personally, I find this type of product marketing to be distasteful, whenever and wherever it is done. "Product A versus Product B" comparisons should, in my opinion, be conducted only by independent testing organizations.

 

This comparison is not made by Eset. U have to move ur mouse to '?' symbol, so that it will show the sites which did the comparison.

 

ESET is just picking 3rd party test results that make them look the best. Seems like normal marketing practice to me.