PassMark: Consumer Antivirus Performance Benchmarks 2011

Kudos for the explanation.
Much appreciated.

 

I fail to understand how the specification of the overall scope of the tests by the company funding the testing necessarily implies that the test results are anything less than impartial and factual. The tests run by PassMark are empirical (e.g., boot time or scan time criteria); are applied uniformly to all products tested; and can be independently verified by anyone wishing to do so.

 

VERY interesting

 

Some products i.e. Eset, BitDefender were tested in August, 2009 - over a year ago. Others i.e. Norton, Kaspersky were tested just two months ago. Not really a fair comparison is it?

 

interesting

 

Edition 3 has been published: http://www.passmark.com/tpsreport11

 

Exactly. They used "legacy" versions of ESET & F-Secure. Pathetic!

More like it.

 

If that's the truth then these test can not be accurate. Maybe they should have done some basic reading on how to conduct a test. Products can have huge improvements, and sometimes lowered performance with any build released.

 

Avast! did very well so I'm happy. I also doubt how fast Norton was. My college's computers use Symantec Endpoint, and yesterday, two different computers I went on were running incredibly slow. The process hogging the CPU was Rtvscan.exe, which belongs to Norton. If you look on sites that review Norton, you will notice a disparity between the professional review and user reviews.

---Cnet.com---
Norton Internet Security, Editor 5.0, Users 3.0
Norton Antivirus, Editor 4.5, Users 2.5
Norton 360, Editor 5.0, Users 2.5

 

Symantec Endpoint is a completely different product made for corporate users.

 

Cnet.com user reviews date back to 2006 for Norton Antivirus and 2007 for Norton Internet Security and Norton 360. The images are of Norton Antivirus 2009 and Norton Internet Security 2010.

Here are many happy Norton customers.

 

Accusation by innuendo, IMO.

It's just my guess that it is questionable ethics for 1 test outfit to diss another test outfit.

Besides, products wishing to be tested by AV-Comparatives must pay in order to be included, right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AV-Comp, Matousec, Passmark, AV-Test.org -- not one is philantropic. Test techs must eat & pay mortgages. Whatever is the world coming to?

In my obnoxious opinion ------ Those who diss all tests are proclaiming their inability or reluctance to assimilate data from various sources, sift the wheat from the chaff, and inductively draw conclusions.

 

ye but thers a clear bias when only one vendor is paying for the test unlike in AV-C where they all pay.

 

BTW, AV-C is a non profit organization

 

Non-profit or not, I have no doubt that AV-C pays its employees a salary, & that the funds wherewith to do that are derived from their testing revenues. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, of course.

However, Consumer Reports is also non-profit, but they *claim* to accept no money whatsoever from the products they test. Instead, their revenues come from subscribers to their test reports. I wonder if this isn't a more objective method, as opposed to charging fees to those who wish to be tested?

 

Hahahaha i wasn't attacking you just stated what an AV-C representative said
But yeah, it does cost money to be tested with AV-C

 

That's interesting