File-Detection Test September 2012

Hehe I like <80%, what was the actual number. And "crazy many" FPs.

Slightly disappointed in Avast!, but I guess it only missed a little over 1%.

 

I prefer the AV-test reports. I find them to be much more similar to my real world tests. Webroot has great protection scores in those tests.

I mean this AVC test is telling me MSE is better than WSA?!?! No way I believe MSE outperforms WSA in the real world. No way!

 

Here we go again. Yet another test where the results make everyone whine and complain. Just accept the results. Stop all this nonsense.

 

Detection rates/False positive. Kaspersky and Avira are very good. Consistency is important. Good job.

 

But AV-C has tested Webroot, along with other vendors. You could level the same point about vendor X, Y or Z, and say users should go to their respective support forums if they have an issue or question about that particular software.

People have a right to question the test results given the claim that Webroot works differently to other AVs. PrevxHelp has even hinted that they, Webroot, are working with your organisation to do a different test, possibly separate from the current one. If this is not workable under the current AV-C test criteria, then Webroot needs to be removed from future tests of this kind.

 

As far as Webroot keeps paying for the tests (and expresses interest), they can and will continue to be tested, at least till the end of the year.

Specifics of detection rates and FPs of Webroot can be split off into another thread right?

Side note: Norton still has a foot in the door through it's subsidiary company PC Tools. Apparently it isn't stellar this time (but decent all the same), but Norton's results would obviously be better due to Norton Insight and pulse updates. Just a little heads up for those using Norton and wondering how it would have done.

 

That's probably a good idea, and is possibly what IBK really meant to say.

 

Any reason why the comodo AV is not tested?

 

Comodo AV will never be tested cause all the fanboys will whine and complain. Melih will have a field day and Languyy99 will make a video showing that AVC doesn't know what they are doing. Comodo AV actually scores very low in most tests. False positives kill it.

 

I must be a fanboy then.Ive never come across any False positives.
Which tests are those

 

I know the boys over at MRG. When they have tested it they cannot even shows the results it does so poorly. Same with AVC. They did test Comodo AV but it failed so bad they did not post it (not sure the exact date). The AV is weak. D+ is what is strong. Just like CIS. Take away D+ and its pretty much worthless. The problem with Comodo is that anytime it fails Melih has a field day and cries like a baby when you take away there woobie. So who wants to deal with that? Sveta had it out with Comodo several times. And then there poster child "Languy99" gets involved. Until the Comodo team can start acting professionally they will never be treated professionally or tested by any professional company. I do believe some site showed CAV scoring high but that was a Comodo sponsored test.

Comodo = Drama

 

I am not going into what test etc, just observing (and I am not a user of it), the strong improvements Fortinet has made over the years (also in other tests).

 

G Data and Avira the top-notch malware detectors
.

 

Webroot is a a garbage AV. They should offer refunds for lying and the marketing crap they produce. Hell I would like my money back...Fool me once but not twice...

They should have spent that money they gave to PCmag for that blatant paid review on hiring a few more malware analysts for better detection.

 

Last time that Norton was tested by AV-C it scored seven points more than PC Tools.

 

If you or anyone else really feel that Webroot has not protected you sufficiently and you've wasted your money and have since stopped using the product, I see no issue offering a refund. We stand behind our product and I've explained our approach in response to many posts you've made but it seems our differences may be irreconcilable. Just send me your license key and email address via PM and write into our support inbox and I'll be sure it gets processed ASAP. I'd much rather have a customer we can win back in the future rather than someone who feels we've let them down (especially considering it was the 2012 product being tested in this review rather than the 2013 product).

Also, to clarify again, PC Magazine has no financial relationship with Webroot (or any of the other tested companies as far as I'm aware) whereas virtually every other AV testing firm does (AV-C included), so they're actually one firm that isn't paid for the tests they do. I really hope you re-read the PC Magazine reviews and consider the other products they've reviewed as well before starting to throw around baseless and insulting accusations.

 

Your first part of the answer really impressed me, so I would like to say - wow, you are one of the most polite, civilized and poised support persons I've read posts from. I know it's off-topic but I wanted to say that.

 

yeah..
Bravo

 

-AVIRA: Great.

-ESET: Worse than AVG!

-Webroot: No further comment.

 

Pervex I admit I am trolling, but I feel let down. I paid for a product last year based on the glowing reviews from PCmag. Now I have learnt a lot since then so I don't get sucked in as much, only sometimes

In reality the detection just sucks, now I don't like pounding a product into the ground but if you keep up with this speel that everything is OK then I'm sorry I can't help but letting people know not to buy it.

I admire you defending your product, but come on man. We want better results for our money.

 

ComputerSaysNo, I'm sorry about how you feel. Unfortunately marketing is targeting a large amount of potential customers, not only AV-literate people, and it's becoming more and more agressive, so in order for vendors to survive they have to push it (see ESET's marketing and not only). This is the reality, no matter if I approve of it. But this is valid not only for AV vendors. I also would like Webroot to boost up their detection rate, that's why I'm always using it with another AV. I'm sure most of your comments come from the fact that I think you nevertheless like the product and want it to perform better. My thoughts only.

 

Actually... I do like the product. But I don't want to use 2 AV's because 1 isn't up to scratch. I think Webroot could be a very good product, "could" but atm it isn't what it could be.

 

I have a problem your statement.If the samples are not detected in the first place then could you explain why webroot isolates them please?

 

What he means is that undetected samples are monitored through the jornaling process, and at the point they're deemed malicious, the system is rolled back to where it was before the infection occured. This is an approach some are having difficulty understanding, and the way current AV-C on-demand tests work, such a method can't be tested properly under the conditions set.

 

Ok yes im fine with that.You say the system is rolled backed before the infection occured.Correct me if im wrong here but isnt this like using a sytem restore after ive been infected.The principle sounds the same.

Thats like having no AV at all and if i get infected i just roll back to a restore point.
Hope you understand where im coming from here.