On-Demand Comparative August 2011

Somebody here not long ago suggested that Avira was in disarray and about to be disbanded. Not a bad performance for a company in such a predicament!

 

Yep I recall that to and look how well it did.

 

Its funny how people jump ship from these test result.

 

I wonder if AV-C will test validEDGE since they advertise it at the end of their report.

They shouldn't need to unless they're going to come into contact with the copious amount of malware that these testing organisations apparently seem to.

 

It's called the bandwagon syndrome!

 

Glad to see Avira do that well, but I guess they did get all ADV+ last year. Very surprising results from Panda; high detection rate and very-few FPs? That used to be their main fault.

Also, anyone know if they are doing a removal test any time soon? Detection is one thing, removal is another.

 

If by people do you mean trjam?

 

Couldn't have said it better.

Ziaul

 

Glad my beloved ESET NOD32 is doing pretty well in these tests.

Although, I have a doubt. What does it mean the category: “Other Malware/Viruses” ?
Is it the old Script Viruses category or is it just Fake AVs, Rootkits [like TDSS], Zbot and trojan Ransom or else?

I ask because this is the category where nearly all AVs scored poorly.



Carlos

 

LOL.

 

yes its me, its me.

I agree though about people jumping ship just based on some test results.

 

Never heard it put that way before but that sounds good to me.

 

Symantec has a big problem with FPs. If you look at the Whole Product Dynamic Summary Report (March-June 2011), they were dropped a level in rating due to excessive FPs.

 

Well at least pandas are cute teddy bears,better then an ugly Rino.

 

I'm surprised no one has commented on McAfee's performance this time around.

 

Glad to see Avira back on track... And trend is really surprising me....

 

Talk something about McAfee guys.. they are really working hard on FPs. No FP..

 

Similarity between F Secure and eScan:
1. Both use Bitdefender engine
2. Both use additional in-house technology
3. Both scored similarly better (98,5%) than Bitdefender (98.4%)
difference between them
1. F Secure's technology reduce 2 FP from Bitdefender's 8 FP.
2. eScan technology adds 21 more FP to Bitdefender's 8 FP.

I think eScan should better leave their own technology.

 

Very few people here, and around the internet in general likes it.

 

Not a Mcafee fan but good job to them for working hard to better there product.

 

Not surprised by Norton results, they did sacrifice their definitions with performance
This is reflected in a small set (RealWorld test), what would you expect in a big set(on demand)?

You cannot expect good quality in detection for a product forced(instead of engineered) to be fast. Even worst, when it uses the cloud reputation for detection/protection.

 

False alarm result: --http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/fp/avc_fp_aug2011.pdf

 

Evidence of your claims?
Unbelievably wrong, just look at the methodology .

What about Avira, Panda, etc.? Completely unrelated, not to mention blatantly false.

I doubt you know what you're talking about .

 

I wish they tested Vipre and Comodo. 3 days ago I plugged a flash drive (given to me by a friend to check) on my XP Pro netbook with Vipre Home running: 12 viruses and trojans it detected and cleaned (with each one having a detailed analyses). For a second opinion I plugged it on my main machine with Avira and MBAM, and found nothing.

 

Yup, they really need to work on that! Other than that, my GF, mom & dad and sister have been running NIS the last three years without a single fp so im not scared of that. Im on the other hand, experiencing many fp's when testing the likes of AVG, Avira, G-Data etc. so my real life experience is quite opposite