Interesting Emsisoft Tests

It's only on threats during a two week period.

Sophos might process new threats at a later stage, or slower than the others.

 

Just a quick note incase this has not been noted before, MBAM only adds samples that other vendors don't detect. If it has more then 10 flags at VT its not gonna get put on the list.

I think they do this because it makes the program less heavy and works better along with a normal AV scanner.

 

another useless test out there.

I'm still laughing reading the note:

After?!?! LOOL This test must be really serious

And, by the way, are you going to fight malwares with Mamutu? Totally user mode software that is supposed to trace software behaviors?

It could be bypassed in 0.1 seconds

 

A useless test. Good advertisement for average users. A-sq has a lot lot false positives. Unimpresive.

 

Completely agree

 

As far as I see it this test is not a advertisement for A-squared, it's purpose is to see how fast anti-virus programs add new samples.

But as expected Avira on the top again!

 

If this is true, which I believe it's according to many users' comments in different topics -

 

Well said!

And also a resource hog...

 

This is incorrect. We prioritize those that are less detected but add all samples.

These types of tests are just great! I love the smell of bs in the morning. If your going to believe our program and SUPERAntiSpyware caught below 10% of samples then you need to do some Google research. And yes, I am defending the competition.

What the testers did is as follows. Gather samples, place them into a folder, right click the folder and scan with the utility to see how many threats it finds. Now if the test was done on live infections, I assure you that graph would be reverse, i.e. a-squared on bottom and SUPERAntiSpyware on top.

Believe what you want. Google is the answer. There is a reason why SAS and MBAM are recommended multiple times -- because they work, not because they perform well in a lab environment tested by the company that comes in front .

 

Mike,

I think it is also fair to fully disclose that Emsisoft helps distribute (or sell) your product, Online Armor as seen here. I assume that is not the reason you posted this thread, however, full disclosure is always appreciated!

 

no way a-squared got 99.9%...

 

Somebuddy had to say it.

 

Your test is simply a one sided test to make your product look good - bottom line. Provide the COMPLETE sample set so we can run our own test against the sample set.

Here is a except from my blog regarding testing methodology that readers wish to consider when reviewing the test above.

The Importance of Testing Methodology

In today’s oversaturated market of anti-spyware/malware/adware applications, it is becoming increasingly difficult for users to determine which applications will perform best for their specific needs. Thus, they look for standardized and legitimate “comparative tests” of these applications.

Testing anti-spyware applications is not an easy task. It is imperative that those who are going to undertake the task of testing need to have the skills to perform the tests competently and to test the products in real-world situations. Otherwise they are not performing a service to users. Users also need to examine the credibility of the party testing the applications and not simply “look at the numbers.” Currently, most tests are not comparing “apples to apples” because every anti-spyware application uses different methods of reporting the “numbers” of infections detected and removed.

There are standardized and widely accepted elements of any investigative report. These include an Introduction, Materials and Methods or Procedures, Results, Discussion and usually, but not always, Conclusions.

The most critical elements of an adequate report or investigation are to provide the reader with the Materials and Methods used which would allow others to duplicate the experiment or investigation to determine the validity of the results; that is, are the results reproducible in the hands of others using the same procedures (Materials and Methods). Thus, the methodology used in any investigation must be of sufficient detail to allow any interested parties the opportunity to independently validate the results.

In using non-standardized methods, it is critical to provide detailed procedure in order to ensure validation by allowing reproduction of the results by others.

When or if it is determined that the methodology is itself flawed or contains documented errors, this invalidates the results and casts serious concerns on other components or elements of the entire methodology and on the results.

The level of detail cannot be assumed or taken on faith. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to provide a level of detail which removes any ambiguity as to how something was done and to provide and detail the safeguards used to ensure that the procedures were indeed followed.

In examining the testing methodology used by recent tests by A-Sqared, it is unclear whether their own procedures were followed when flaws or errors are discovered as detailed elsewhere. This casts doubt on how other elements were carried out. Furthermore, it is one thing to say how you are carrying out the testing and another to actually follow the protocol. Thus, alleged transparency by providing the purported methodology cannot in and of itself be accepted on faith and can be extremely misleading particularly in view of any demonstrated inadequacies.

Malware testing is certainly a daunting task and adequate documentation of methodology is the single most important element in validation of the results. When testing is performed by individuals one can accept and or excuse minor inadequacies. However, when the results are performed by alleged experts, in testing facilities which exist for testing purposes, they must be held to the highest standards.

 

I think it is CK that Emsisoft has products that are FP magnets. It is no wonder they detect everything. Now, if they ever correct this, they will either be almost as good as Eset, or they will have no detection at all. So, Nick, we all know SAS is good.

Bottom line: Emsisoft should have kept this test internal. It will cost them.

 

Oh, give me a break, Avira is the 2nd FP Queen in the software world.

 

Your too polite Marcin

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it most probaly is

Christian,

There is a very simple reason why both MBAM and SAS are widely used by malware removal experts at help forums as the principal tools and not your a2 free.

Realworld infections and software performance against them do not reflect your contrived test results.

Are they really eating away at your target market so much that you have to result to this kind of blatent misrepresentation inorder to promote your software ?

Mike,

As an expert in your field i am quite simply surprised that you can even think those test results carry any credebility

 

*sigh* I thought Emsisoft would be different...

I agree that this test should of been kept "in house", but if Emsisoft cared about it's users I think they would still rectify themselves and remove the test from the website. There have been independent tests which show A2 top of the charts or equal too and almost greater then number 1, which could be used on their website to show that A2 is a very good antivirus.

I hope you guys haven't gone over your head just because you got an addition from Ikarus.

 

Very similar, and can be repeated by downloading their latest "do it yourself
malware test".
The real point is the outcome of both test are similar because the same
methodology is used.
Static,un-executed malware, is scanned by a application that is primarily designed to detect running malware.

 

That is pure tee bull ****. Sorry for my venting. But you are going to come here and say "Mike was posting some interesting tests, nothing more nothing less."

How about folks actually believe this stuff, and as a vendor, dont play dumb. How about the fact that some feed their families or dont, because of tests, err, excuse me, "interesting" tests.

All I can say is, you want to have office parties, then do it, but in the office. Any test that can not be validated is not a test, but a scam. You folks really screwed up today. I am personally asking others to boycott this vendor. You dont play around with others lives.

 

It is a shame that a reputable company such as Emsisoft would be so desperate to suck money out of their customers that they would resort to discrediting other reputable companies with a test clearly suited to put a-squared in first place. Just business I guess right? What's next, a toolbar? I heard that's a great business move too.

Personally, I'm touched. As the owner of a company that I know will outperform a-squared anti-malware in a live test I am just sitting here with a huge grin knowing they had to resort to this.

Customer happiness > Money in our opinion. Maybe not theirs.

 

Agreed! Oh the power of a search engine is so great .

 

snake oil

 

Please, try to understand better how program works, and then you will have the answer for this...

 

You can start by searching in SUPERAntiSpyware Forum...

About this topic:
When programs are just great and do their jobs, like SUPERAntiSpyware and MalwareByte's Anti-Malware, they doesn't need to show up here and there with this kind of BS tests...

It's really incredible how some "respectable" security companies can do things like this...