Free Anti-Virus Software Showdown: The Best of 2012

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Esse, Jun 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Esse

    Esse Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Posts:
    383
  2. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Thanks. Interesting read. Agree with most their comments, though I find the same faults with Comodo(yes hard to use, but lighter than they say) & Panda that they did.
     
  3. phyniks

    phyniks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Posts:
    258
    Thanks for the link
    but the result differs from latest AV-test
    Avast is great in cleaning in this review while its repairing ability was poor in AV-Test

    check the" Protection" in the sites....they re quite different

    look at here:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388652,00.asp

    these obvious differences between the results make it difficult for users to choose the right choice

    they all claim they are independant

    Users dont know which one to trust
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  4. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Yep, I agree. That's why besides reading the reviews, I do my own testing.
     
  5. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,949
    I want to know more about the sample set used .3 for real time protection of Panda seems off compared to other testing sites.
     
  6. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    I am pretty disappointed with this test. It almost seems that they had the ratings to be given in mind and they just gave a small note for each AV.

    Avg has been a winner in recent tests and i would like to know if its so easy to disable its installation on a infested pc as they claim.

    Though i agree, ID-Theft does take some ram. B'coz after disabling it, my booting was faster and lighter generally.
     
  7. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    I agree, and i am amused by the "Active" thing, they in fact test webfiltering and i wonder if they set Comodo DNS during the installation of CIS or install Panda URL filter...
    Im surprised by Panda result, it was the only one than removed a malware where MBAM and HMP failed.

    Also, they grade the usability and test an HIPS...

    and honestly who has 25 000 malwares on a drive...

    trust only your real-world selftesting. the rest is nothing.
     
  8. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Wow. I think that the report on panda was the smallest of all of them. I find that panda usually does better in tests than some of the other ones. I'm not really sure if they were able to use an internet connection.
    Also what is Ultra Virus KIller? Its under the complimentary section. Anyone ever heard of it?
     
  9. pbust

    pbust AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Posts:
    1,173
    Location:
    Spain
    Code:
    [B]PERFORMANCE[/B]
    Avast	*****
    MSE	*****
    AVG	****
    Avira	****
    Panda	****
    
    [B]DETECTION[/B]
    Avast	*****
    AVG	***
    Avira	***
    MSE	***
    Panda	**
    
    This is pretty much the complete opposite of what recent AV-Test and AV-Comparatives tests reveal.

    I wonder what testbed and source they used for their tests and if they allowed connectivity to cloud-scanning during the malware execution and on-demand tests. Their published methodology doesn't specify this but it definitely looks like they didn't.
     
  10. Tyrizian

    Tyrizian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Posts:
    2,806
    Wow, I think Panda wasn't given a fair evaluation. Those tests are definitely wrong. I think Panda is extremely good on detecting threats.
     
  11. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    it is an efficient manual malware removal and system fixer tool

    http://www.carifred.com/uvk/
     
  12. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Agree with your comments.
     
  13. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,222
    Seems to me that results from different tests are more and more conflicting, as a result users are left confused about what to choose. AV Comparatives remains the only test organization with some kind of credibility.
     
  14. StrangerGuy

    StrangerGuy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Posts:
    18
    Mse is doing very well and I tested it on my VM and I am on with it on my main machine,with combination of mbam and hitman pro you can rely on mse and its lightest among all.
     
  15. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    I used to visit TomsHardware frequently a few years ago but since they changed their website design i feel their reviews have declined also. (I mean the quality of the reviews, this is not related specifically to this review.) :D
     
  16. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Location:
    Romania
    Well,i'm so concerned about how bad Panda perform in this test...therefore i re installed it yesterday on my machine!:D :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  17. Technical

    Technical Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    471
    Location:
    Brazil
  18. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,949
  19. PaulBB

    PaulBB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    708
    It does:

     
  20. pbust

    pbust AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Posts:
    1,173
    Location:
    Spain
    This is ridiculous. On-demand scan time is the least important of performance indicators in a real-time av solution. It might be the most important in an on-demand scanner such as MBAM or HitmanPro, but not on a real-time AV solution.

    * Does not say if cloud-connectivity was allowed during these parts of the testing or not.
    * Does not disclose how testing of "threats of different time periods" is performed. Is this offline?
    * Does not disclose if testing of "other protective features of each program like sandboxing" also includes testing of "url filters" as in the case of Panda.

    Scanning and Cleaning
    * Does not disclose if products were allowed connectivity to cloud-based scanning.

    Overall
    * Does not disclose if default installation was used for all products.
    * Does not disclose if additional default tools such as URL Filter in the case of Panda were installed.
    * Does not disclose source of testbed.
    * Does not disclose how each sample of the testbed was verified to be working and malicious.
    * Does not disclose if particular vendor(s) provided samples or URLs.
    * Did not provide missed samples to vendors.
    * Does not provide a contact to ask for missed samples or for verification of results.

    There's a lot more documentation over at www.amtso.org to check against this published methodology. But from the perspective of a vendor this test and methodology is for sure lacking a lot of basics. I simply do not believe AVG got 3/5 and Panda got 2/5 on detection while Avast got 5/5... ridiculous unless the methodology and source of malware is made clearer.
     
  21. PaulBB

    PaulBB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    708
    It is not allowed and I don't want to start a debate here about the Panda cloud AV capabilities. I invite everyone who think that Panda Cloud is such a great antivirus and believe the AV-TEST results and TomsHardware test is wrong to go on YouTube and search for Panda Cloud Antivirus.
     
  22. pbust

    pbust AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Posts:
    1,173
    Location:
    Spain
    WOW, with such powerful argument there is simply no possible counter-response.
    :)
     
  23. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559

    I agree. I never run scans with my AV anymore. I use things like MBAM on demand. I dont care how long it take for my AV to scan. I care more about disk io, cpu time, ram, etc....
     
  24. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    :rolleyes: Perhaps TomsHardware test was done on the cheap by YouTube testers.
     
  25. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    :D :rolleyes:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.