On-Demand Comparative August 2011

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Hawk82, Sep 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Seeker

    The Seeker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    Adelaide
    MBAM will only kick in when a file is executed.
     
  2. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,378
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    Reading my post #49, I realize it was misleading. What I really meant is that Vipre detected and cleaned so well that neither MBAM nor Avira picked any leftovers from Vipre (MBAM is often used in video tests to check if anything was left behind by other AVs).
     
  3. The Seeker

    The Seeker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Ah right. Gotcha.
     
  4. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    On-Demand Comparative (August 2011)

    Avira: Back on Top...
    Symantec: Surprisingly Low...
     
  5. ReverseGear

    ReverseGear Guest

    U could have done the test in reverse..scanning with avira n mbam and concluding u dont need paid av [vipre] for protection :D
     
  6. dr pan k

    dr pan k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Posts:
    204
    eset pushed the v5 in the tests right away and got excellent results. to me this is a huge confidence move, and it paid off. congrats to the team
     
  7. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    Does v5 use other virus definitions than v4? This is an on-demand scan, so wouldn't they get the exact same results?
     
  8. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,378
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    I wonder why they don't have so many followers, at least here at Wilders. The price is certainly steep: 49.99 $ for the AV, and the performance is certainly not consistent in most tests.
     
  9. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,378
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    MBAM, Avira, and Vipre are all paid versions on my machines. I like to think Vipre is very promising, but it should be tested by AV Comparatives.
     
  10. ReverseGear

    ReverseGear Guest

    But for the static detection both avira free and avira paid will ahve same detection
     
  11. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    812
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    Surprised by norton's result. hope it performs better in next test .

    McAFee is ot surprise for me. it always scored well in Ondemand tests but fails on other tests.

    ESET , AVira, KAspersky, AVast did great
     
  12. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    It's nice to see that the Multi-engine solutions got great detection results, even though some got too many FP's.

    Well Symantec got it all wrong this time in terms of FP's nothing more to say really. ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ happens :)

    And it's nice to see that Trend Micro is doing well in an on-demand test for once :thumb:

    About the Free AV's well I must say that I am really impressed with PCAV just amazing. :thumb: And Avira too, let's just hope that their good trend is on going in V12 as well. :thumb: Same for Avast! :thumb:

    And ESET not the best not the worst just as usual in O-D tests.

    And it's a shame that Sophos and Webroot had problems with their cloud technology during the test period.

    And McAfee get's :thumb: for their outstanding FP rating!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 29, 2011
  13. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    What I always find surprising is that the products that do well in these on demand tests never seem to fair well in the few "real world" tests that I have read,Kaspersky hasn't done too well here but always beats the ones that are top here in real world situations??It goes to show that "On demand" detection isn't the be all and end all,especially when for this test some of the weapons(for want of a better term) of some products are disabled,in fact the way it is conducted doesn't really have any relevance to the way I or most other users would use some products
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2011
  14. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    Yes real world is most important,prevention before hand and not trying to clean up a mess afterwards that so many struggle to clean anyways.However its still a good thing a OD scan lets us know it found something rather I'm clean and its not.
     
  15. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    4,934
    Heh. ;)
     
  16. avdude15

    avdude15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Posts:
    2
    The Norton tests really came out badly. You don't expect them to do well at this - since this test doesn't look at pro-active technology such as Sonar or IPS. Even so, if their "Insight" does half of what they claim they should never have had their terrible FP scores.

    They also should have done better in performance - they make lots of aggrssive claims about scan speed.....though in truth it is a kinda silly metric.

    I wonder if this test was done without an internet connection - that would explain the failure of insight to catch FPs
     
  17. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,641
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Avira!!! :-*
     
  18. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,053
    microsoft has not done well this time...........one of the lowest detection-rate and slowest on-demand scan speed test.........i was sincerely hoping for better....
     
  19. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,229
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Kudos to McAfee, but I have noticed that their product is significantly less effective when you are not connected to the Internet.

    As for eScan, I think they just need to fine tune their own engine a bit more. I was surprised at PC Tools' result - I thought having Symantec's definitions would get it a better score. I really think Symantec should consider merging the cloud networks of PC Tools and Norton.
     
  20. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    just a a thought re-Norton:-if these results are for August wont these tests have been conducted before the release date of 2012 products,the version on sale/for download now is a different version!
     
  21. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    NIS 2011 and 2012 uses the same definitions, and this is a pure on-demand scan test.
     
  22. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    same definitions maybe but if the way each version detects malware is different then the results could be different even using same definitions
     
  23. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    Partially correct.
    Both NIS 2011 and 2012 can use Full or the Core set of definitions. NIS 2011 uses the full set and NIS 2012 uses the core set, such change can explain the increase in FP's.

    And for the poster asking for ESET definitions, there is no major differences, if any, the engine is shared between v3/v4/v5 and the definitions are improved rather than changed completely, if you see better rates in dynamic test, this can be due to URL blockers.
     
  24. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    It's for sale all over the place here or has been recently. Consistency is lacking as you say. I just wonder if it's the start of something good?
     
  25. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    8,005
    McAfee has always seemed to be a huge drag on the system, so I don't think people here at Wilders will go for it, even if detection is stellar....
     
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.