MRG Test #21 On Demand Results

Hi,

Here is the summary:

Program Detection Rate (%)
a-squared 99.8%
Online Armor ++ 99.8%
G Data 99.6%
Avira 99.5%
Ikarus 99.4%
Panda 98.9%
Norton 98.8%
Avast 98.7%*
McAfee 98.7%
BitDefender 98.6%*
eScan 98.6%
F-Secure 98.5%
No32 98.3%
Kaspersky 98.2%
Comodo 98.1%
AVG 97.4%
F-Prot 95.7%
Twister 94.6%
Sophos 94.4%
Norman 93.2%
Spy Emergency 66.5%

Details:
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

 

What does the * indicate by the results for Avast and BitDefender?

 

To mark which application detected more, and used in cases where detection difference is less then 0.05%.

 

Thank you for the explanation.

 

Result table vs bar chart
No(?)32 98.3% vs Nod32 98.1%

Bar chart vs bar chart
Kaspersky scored 98.2%, but Nod32 with 98.1% is above.

Nonsense... as always.

Cheers

 

It looks like AVG has moved up. Also a good score from Comodo; I may give CIS a whirl if AntiVir's updates keep stalling.

Thanks for sharing the results.

 

Another worthless test that only tests the scanner capabilities.. When will people learn that the file scanner in most Tier 1 products has quickly taken a backseat to other technologies like behavioral engines etc.

 

But which AV have a behaviour blocker / HIPS component?

I think:

a-squared 99.8% - YES
Online Armor ++ 99.8% - YES
G Data 99.6% - NO
Avira 99.5% - NO
Ikarus 99.4% - NO
Panda 98.9% - NO
Norton 98.8% - YES
Avast 98.7%* - NO
McAfee 98.7% - YES
BitDefender 98.6%* - NO
eScan 98.6% - NO
F-Secure 98.5% - YES
Nod32 98.3% - NO
Kaspersky 98.2% - YES
Comodo 98.1% - NO
AVG 97.4% - YES

Am I right?

 

For some reason I thought Bitdefender had that B-have monitor and also thought this was incorporated into Gdata (I could be wrong). Also, what behavior monitor does AVG have? Comodo 98.1%? Thought that was only possible with CIS.

 

I forgot BitDefender with B-have

AVG Identity Protection aka Antibot

 

Panda has both behaviour blocker and cloud-scanning, yet according to the explanation of the methodology it says only McAfee's Artemis was able to connect to the Internet, not Panda.

Not very good testing methodology

 

Don't you worry my friend, no one cares about MRG.

 

That's good to know

But I think that applies to Wilder's users who have a good grasp of AV issues. I do worry about unsuspecting users who will see this and other similar tests and take it as valid.

 

dont feel bad, ShadowServer still uses Nod 2.7 for its testing purposes.

 

Funny you mention that. In our case they use a 4-year old scanner

 

I agree, this test seems to be junk As far as I know MRG is a cracker organisation

 

What about Microsoft Essentials

 

I agree.
That doesn't seem fair to Panda.

 

yes its crap. Most of it at least. There are very few places where we can find trustworthy test results unless we do it ourselves. I was wondering about Vipre? How good is it? Ive read a lot about it but you dont see it very much in these tests, is this because its no good or what?

 

I thought the stand alone AVG av did not have the ID Protect. Also, looks like it indeed was CIS and not a stand alone Comodo AV in the test.

 

I had high hopes for vipre since they have very interesting technology. Actually testing with fresh malware indicated otherwise. Not sure whats going on.

 

A-Squared Online Armor GData Avira Ikarus

Thanks for the heads-up