MBAM, SAS and Immunet Qs

Whenever you see a post about a bad infection invariably one sees MBAM or SAS noted as the saviour.

From what I read I understand that MBAM and SAS are not full-blown a-v yet they get excellent press even without the extensive testing that avast, avira et al undergo.

Why don't they become full-blown a-v if they are so good?

How useful is their real-time guard if it covers a limited number of malware?

It looks as though Immunet free is playing in the same space as a companion product. Should I wait to see excellent reports wrt Immunet as a saviour before using it?

It seems the testing for a-v is rigorous whereas the reputation of companion a-v is built on word-of-mouth.

Ian

 

Immunet is meant as a supplement to existing AV's not to antimalware programs.

From reviews it does better than MBAM in almost all areas except one.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1696755&postcount=33
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1698951&postcount=205

 

.
MBAM and SAS find and remove trojans, rootkits and scareware. Typically they do this better then AVs. Why should they try to become "full blown Avs"? They get good press because they work in the field. MBAM and SAS are programs to fall back on when you get an infection that the AV can't deal with.

 

I am sure you have heard that .. "Jack of everything, Master of none"

So in ma opinion, MBAM and SAS following this quotation religiously...They don't want be "Jack of Everything"...and this what i feel is better for them.