consumersearch did not mention Avira?

http://www.consumersearch.com/antivirus-software/best-antivirus-software

Why do they not mention Avira? Are they just not aware of it?

 

They're mentioned in the free section. 3.5 star rating.

 

probably avira didn`t pay to be in the list or paid too little...

 

Oddly enough, not far from Avira's miserable description behind the winners, AVG and Avast, yet again the name Neil Rubenking seems to be the very special adviser on these matters. Oh, sorry I forgot to mention that 2 out of 4 of the best products tested are NIS and NAV, remarkable truly remarkable.

 

I don't know about bribery, but they sound incompetent.

They seems to think CNET, TopTenReviews and PC Magazine are the only trustworthy reviews available, and it mentions tests performed by virus.gr and VirusBulletin, all of which are dubious sources IMHO (maybe not PC Mag so much).

 

You all are right.

did you notice who are their advertisers?

 

Actually one mention of TopTenReviews is not exactly complimentary.

 

IMHO it shouldn't even be mentioned, it's an untrustworthy source.

 

First I'm not disputing that the latest versions of NIS and NAV have improved immensely from the 2004-2005 versions. The point here is the thread title: "consumersearch did not mention Avira". You refer to AV Comparatives, so let's talk about the latest results. Top detection on a test bed of 1,274,928 samples went to GDATA and Avira. Let's do some simple maths: Avira Premium compared to Norton Anti-Virus detects 1% more equivalent to 12,749 samples missed by Norton (the FP count is 24 for Avira and 7 for Norton, practically irrelevant considering the 1 million+ of samples) still Avira doesn't get even the courtesy of being mentioned.

Second example: AVG shows as the best free AV. The difference in detection between Avira and AVG is 6.7% equivalent to 84,585 samples missed by AVG. Avira shows ranking third.

We are not talking about 50, 100 samples, we are talking about tens of thousands! You only need one sample to get infected. Lately Intel has been fined 1.6 billion Euros for unfair practices towards AMD. I think Symantec has been behaving similarly towards its competition, they are good now but they are not the best, and they have used strategies that ought to be challenged by the antitrust authorities.

 

Seems like Ruebenking was dissed by Avira in some ways or maybe they didn't buy a subscrition to his mag he should go back and create inctrl4 now, long needed and stay off AV testing. NIS and NAV are bit time sponsors, Avira isn't plus Avira is German, gotta be some reason there.

 

As previously stated, this analysis is faulty. The false positive analysis is based on a clean set, NOT the malware testbed. We don't know the size of the clean set. See:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1432067&postcount=139

 

The link says what you are stating, "the analysis is faulty" but nobody knows why, very interesting proof. Still I'd take my chances with something that detects 12,749 more samples (twelve thousands seven hundred and forty nine) more and a few more false positive (if 24 is a lot, 7 is also considerable).

 

Wrong. We do know why the analysis is faulty. The analysis is faulty because the size of the clean set is not equal to the size of the malware testbed.
Choosing one AV over another is based on many factors which has been discussed many times on this forum.

 

are you saying we shouldn't trust this specific test or the whole av-comp org?

 

Indeed GDATA is the real winner according to AV Comparatives, but from my point of view a double engine would probably affect the performance of my computer. In practice using GDATA, Norton, Avira, Eset won't matter much, they are all excellent, I'm concerned about how magazines influence the judgment of prospective buyers. Nine computers out of ten here in Seoul (probably one of the most networked metropolis in the world) is sold with NAV or NIS pre-installed valid between 1-3 months. I don't think it is fair towards other companies, add all the various Rubenkings found on the internet and you have a situation of absolute control of the market.

 

What on earth is wrong? The figures I've reported are showing what is stated on the AV Comparative site, so basically like Mcstorm said you shouldn't trust AV Comparatives. Perhaps Neil Rubenking is more reliable.

 

You stated nobody knows why the analysis is faulty.
I disagree with that statement. The analysis is faulty because the size of the clean set is not the same as the size of the malware testbed.
The analysis I am speaking about is your earlier comment:

I am not stating in any way that the work done at AV-comparatives is faulty.

 

I don't change AVs that often, and Avira has proven over the years to improve significantly, especially in relation to Eset (my former AV, which I still regard as my second favorite). If Eset manage to improve their detection by the time my Avira license expires, I'll have no qualms going back with them. I'm really not interested in other companies. Let me say that again, almost every AV tested by AV Comparatives is good enough for the average user, the point in this thread is the blatant cover up that is often performed by some journalists to promote their sponsors.