Detection rate or features

What do you think that is more important for computer security (antivirus):

• Detection rate
  or
• Features

​

 

I would have to say detection rate, but features are nice too! But without detection rates, features are kinda worthless in a way.

 

Id go for high detection rates but I wouldnt ignore features either.

 

I'd go for features.

 

definately the detection rate.

 

of course detection rate

 

Depends on what kind of features you have and the experience of the user. For example, if an AV has only average detection rate, but comes with all sorts of process monitor, registry analyzer, hidden objects detector, etc. then in case of an undetected infection, an experienced user can go ahead and search and take care of the malware him(her)self.

But for the bigger majority of users, who are either not experienced enough or do not have the time for doing complex stuff, an AV with a high detection rate will matter a lot.

Eventually, a good mix of the two creates a great product. Personally, I'd rather go with a higher importance towards detection rate and value for money.

 

I agree.

 

I'd have to say that detection rate is primary, after all, that's what you have the AV for in the first place right? However, features are nice too. But a mediocre AV (detection-wise) with many nice wonderful features is going to be pretty much useless...

 

well detection rate is important.
but i only want secuirty related features.
like i dont need a file shreader or history eraser.
so i wanted it to be able to secure my computer with no bloated pointless features.
lodore

 

Detection rate of course

 

Detection rate is more important, then the features are worth having. But AV with tons of features and a poor detection rate is not worth much, you can do alot....very poorly.

 

Let me add the art of car explanation by IC... Detection being the gas and the features being the AC and the nice digital audio system.

As long as the car moves from point A to point B with a decent speed (rate of adding new samples) and getting to point B (having a decent detection), I don't care so much as to the features. You don't need AC here in Hawaii and the digital audio is not necessary as you have enough action outside your window.

What's more important is the seat belt or your self decision.

 

We all know that both features are welcome.

Some of AV vendors are implementing HIPS related features.

But I think that features such as HTTP scanning module, messenger scanning module, ability to unpack high number of packers, kernel level operation, pop/imap scanning are useless if software does not detect malware.

This mean that detection rate is something with higher priority than adding more features.

 

False positives. Thats why I go with Norton.

 

Detection rate first definitely.

 

Definently detection as long as removel is just as good,features are nice but not as important.

 

If the detection is really good then why is removal so important? You don't have any nasties to remove!

 

Oh, I thought they were talking about removal of Norton! LOL....

 

That's because Zombini brought up FP's as the most important thing and said that's why he uses Norton and that is how Norton got into this thread which started out as what is more important from an AV - detection rate or features? The thread originally had nothing to do per sé with Norton or any other specific AV.

 

Zombini was making a joke,It seems Zombini has a sense of humor See Here

Just if it detects something already on my pc I want to remove it. Avast did this that others failed to do.

 

For removal effectiveness, see http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=node/18.

 

It's an old test but yet again Kaspersky is at the top

 

I go for features. It's the easiest to determine.

 

Ah yes another test.
I don't put to much stock is such tests.
But this one used ten differant pieces of malware.
Thanks for the link but the proof is in the pudding.
(Dam,I must be getting old can't believe I said proof is in the pudding)