NEW AV-comparatives Real World testing results are out - (August 2013)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by entropism, Sep 14, 2013.

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

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    congrats panda, and keep it up :D

    fortinet is still my free choice for now, they got consistent result :thumb:
     
  2. In the past Avira had the best generic / heuristic detection of the freebies. Other free AV's have developed (Avast) or bought (AVG) additional protection mechanisms. It surprises me that Fortinet has emerged from an mediocre freebie to a solid performer with classic blacklist no user intervention frills (like MSE). It is safe to say that Fortinet has taken over the flag of best classic AV from Avira and even challenging and often beating an innovative free AV like AVAST in detection rates. :thumb:
     
  3. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    thanks for the insight kees :thumb:
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    AFAIK BullGuard's proactive protection module is different from BitDefender's. What is intriguing though is eScan's performance, since it uses the exact same Active Virus Control as BitDefender itself. But, it appears malware URL blocking is disabled by default in eScan, and since AV-C uses the default settings, it could explain the result (not to mention, different URL databases, etc.).
     
  5. c2d

    c2d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    572
    Location:
    Bosnia
    @entropism
    Thanks for the heads up.
    I expected better from BullGuard :(
     
  6. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,972
    Wow I expected a little higher from AVG
     
  7. JoeBlack40

    JoeBlack40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    1,584
    Location:
    Romania
    And why is that?Only 0,4% was compromised.True,8,7 user dependent,but i am ok with that,i don't want an AV to make decisions by itself without asking me.So it's a :thumb: for me.
     
  8. Ibrad

    Ibrad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    1,972
    Yes but only 90% detected without being user dependent. Which is the lowest of all the engines. Based on the AVG user base I honestly would expect a higher detection rate of the none user dependent detections.

    I think after all the users of bolting other products onto the Avg engine something needs to change to improve overall efficiency. The antibot detection tech is pretty good if they incorporated those data points into the cloud I think they could increase their detection rates.
     
  9. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,491
    As always the top players at top. :thumb:
     
  10. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    G-Data achieved the max. score 6.0/6.0 in latest av-test.org while av-comp sent it to the bottom, both "realworld tests"...

    Go figure, but as far as I'm concerned "realdumb" comparatives deserves a big :thumbd:
     
  11. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
    GDATA had a result of 0.2% compromised cases at AV-Comparatives. In fact that's less compromised cases than in July, June and May. In April and March, GDATA had 0 compromised cases. So where do you see the gaping difference between AV-Test and AV-Comparatives?
     
  12. De Hollander

    De Hollander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Windmills and cows
    User dependent.... that's in my humble opinion the key. Yes or No.
     
  13. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    They are still very sketchy about using the cloud. I have hardly ever seen any cloud detections from AVG; even the file reputation in the new 2014 version is only used to fine tune their heuristic/generic detections and not to make cloud detections. AFAIK the cloud is still only mainly used to verify false positives in AVG products.
     
  14. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    Eset is truly disappointing :thumbd:

    With that score, why would you need an AV ?

    I was thinking about buying a license for one comp, but with that score ...

    Not that I need an AV, but just having one (I like third party firewalls ...) has its benefits.
     
  15. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    I also thought that first, then I changed the zoom tab to show 0 - 100% and it looked more normal http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2013&month=8&sort=0&zoom=0

    besides I reckon 97,7% isn't bad, ESET has been down to around 96% in another month. If you want to move on then do that, but personally I wouldn't change out a product I am very happy with based on one month results.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2013
  16. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    OP chart where else? 96% of known malware straight blocked and 3.8% of "user dependent" optional detections even using the full Bitdefender databases... so are av-comp saying basically that these 0.2% compromised cases + the (this must be a joke) 3.8% of "user dependent" makes the difference between "realtime" and "file detection" comparatives? Even with other solutions like Bullguard with straight 7.9% of "compromised cases" using the same Bitdefender engine? Oh yeah I forgot it, cloud "technologies" and blah blah..
     
  17. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    BitDefender, Kasperski, and Trend Micro achieved the maximum score, great, but one could argue that they don't come cheap. Let's have a look at Avast, Avira and AVG and let's assume that user dependent is a proper detection:

    Avast with 99.1% of 443 malicious test cases detected 439/443
    Avira with 99.3 %_____________________________440/443
    AVG with 99.6 %_____________________________441/443

    I hope my math is correct, but honestly we are not talking about huge differences, and you've got to have a real bad day to run into those 2-3 undetected exploits!
     
  18. AaLF

    AaLF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Posts:
    986
    Location:
    Sydney
  19. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Well, AVG's Identity Protection (behavior analysis) asks user if he/she wants to block it or not. Prefered and highlighted option is block, but user can pick anything. You can set it to block everything by default in settings though.

    For avast!, only user dependent actions are low file reputation warnings where you actually have a choice and they actually mean someting. I sure hope they don't count AutoSandbox popups as user dependent when it doesn't detect anything but user still has a choice to decline running of the sample (v:cool:. That would be kinda pointless method of counting something as "user dependent". Mostly because v2014 is changing this behavior to anything that isn't detected during DeepScreening is automatically executed by avast! after the analysis. And it's what most users do anyway with v8...
     
  20. avman1995

    avman1995 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Posts:
    944
    Location:
    india
    The only problem with fortinet is that its totally dependent on sigs and web filter,atleast avast has some user dependency to keep the red bar down to 0.9% rather the red bar for fortinet is 1.6%
     
  21. pajenn

    pajenn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Posts:
    930
    thanks for the tests or info about them.

    Qihu disappoints. I recently switched from Comodo Internet Security to Q360 for AV with ZoneAlarm for FW, but now I'm thinking I should have just gone for the whole ZoneAlarm AV+FW suite.

    AVG is actually not bad imo because the detection rate is very high assuming the user knows what they are doing.

    I find false positives, software conflicts and resource hit from AV/FW to be a much bigger problem than actual malware, which I haven't experienced for several years now afaik after being more careful about what I download and install.

    What I'd really like to see is detection rate combined with statistics about false positives and system slowdown. For example, download NirLauncher, which is a collection of small Nirsoft utilities (all good and virus free), and see how many of those your AV thinks contain malware. Download and launch Gimp Portable and see how long it takes to load with and without the AV on.
     
  22. Houley456

    Houley456 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Posts:
    195
    Hope Emisoft does better next time.....
     
  23. zerotox

    zerotox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Posts:
    419
    Absolutely agree with you here.
     
  24. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    8,625
    Location:
    USA
    I usually pay between 0 and $30 for a Kaspersky license. There are always deals to be had. Well worth it for a product with no advertising.
     
  25. blasev

    blasev Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Posts:
    763
    I humbly agree ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.