MRG Effitas Project 33 – Real Time Protection Test Q1 2013

http://www.blog.mrg-effitas.com/mrg-effitas-project-33-real-time-protection-test-q1-2013/

 

Emsisoft, Kaspersky, and DefenseWall doing well as usual.

A surprisingly strong finish for Avast.

MBAM again did better than some full AVs.

And dead last and useless, SuckyAntiSpyware. No surprise there.


.

 

Props to Avast
Always nice to see the usual suspects performing well here.
Emsi = first class!

 

Defencewall as usually got 100%.

 

Quite old and still here

 

Well done SuperSpyware!

 

Yup. No surprise here. Ilya does a great job!

 

Excellent result for superantispyware.
failed right across the board....

Superantispyware should not have been included in this test as its an on-demand scanner only.

 

Errrmmmm.....SAS Pro has real-time protection?

 

Does anyone know how long it has been since Superantispyware performed well in a truly independent test ?
I just don't know how they stay in business.

Perhaps Symantec will acquire them and perform a mercy killing.

 

It does. I bought 2 lifetime licenses for it that currently won't activate. I probably will not bother asking their support to unlock them again, just not worth the time.

 

Another 32bit OS test by them.

 

SuperAntiSpyware was never meant to be a full program. Its a complimentary antispyware program. Don't judge it against Malwarebytes because Malwarebytes has morphed and they have been positioning themselves to be a full "Anti-Malware" program for a while.

 

If Avast had 0 fails, it is closer to the other 0 fails than in the group where it was placed.

It seems that if they penalize it for user input on 5 that it still prevented to its 100%, it should either be placed with the other 100% or given its own group of 4 1/2 stars with the other 4 1/2 stars being 4 stars. That would make more sense than grouping its 100% with a GFI with 97.6% fails or even with Bitdefender and its 4 fails when Avast had 0.

Note, I personally like user input, as I think that on the surface that should allow its layers to be more aggressive without automatically increasing false positives by adding a human element to decide. So I do not understand the idea of knocking user input in the first place.

 

It is a pity they have given up testing Sandboxie.

 

I wish they (or some credible and competent organization) would test non-traditional security apps like Appguard, NVT exe Radar, Voodoo Shield, etc. if for nothing esle but to give them main-stream credibility and awareness. Many of us use these apps but I have not found any decent tests proving their capability that we rely on. This also goes for sandboxing and virtualization apps.

 

imo the rating is weird, next to 5 starts quad of winners, the Avast shall sit alone with 4.5 stars and rest shall get only 4 cause they were compromised by default

oh well sometimes I guess the 'stars' results are more politics than anything else

thankfully I can still read details

 

Wow finally!!

 

Well done avast!

 

Maybe because there are still people who use x86 OSs

 

Yes indeed there are

 

My father still uses a windows.xp 32bit desktop. The OS is so old and the threats so sophisticated nowdays that the prospect of kedping it secured and easy to use for a normal user that its...daunting sometimes to say the least lol....oh almost forgot, i had a client the other day request that i remove win8 from her laptop and install winXP...i wouldnt do it

 

Maybe she was thinking about 7 not XP

 

It's a pity they don't test AppGuard, which is a similar type of application to DefenseWall which they do test.

 

If enough people request it i think they might give it a shot in future tests.