PC Tools Firewall 6 beats Comodo at Matousec

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by aegreen, Sep 9, 2009.

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

    aegreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Posts:
    12
  2. Wildest

    Wildest Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Posts:
    304
  3. zopzop

    zopzop Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Posts:
    632
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Hmm interesting.

    I wonder why he didn't test the latest version of Online Armor (v3.5.0.32). I think I recall reading somewhere on these forums that the free version now included full keylogger protection (same as paid). It should get around 99% too if I'm not mistaken.
     
  4. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    LOL.

    This test is always good for that at least. :blink:
     
  5. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    To me CIS is a feature rich application and CIS provides me two features that I considered the heart of my computer security. 1) The ability to run my browsers isolated and 2) The ability to directly protect processes of security software like Avira on a Windows 64 bit computer.

    Most people are not aware that Avira free does not provide any self protection on Windows 64 bit computers. Consequently, you can protect Avira processes or any other security software processes for that matter without getting any D+ prompt.

    With D+ you could, for example, prevent svchost from executing non Windows executables without any prompt and the list goes on. I'm very happy with CIS and I will not trade it for anything.

    From another perspective have you realised that PCTools firewall is stronger that Symantec own firewall and this is also true for the person who created this thread, have you realized that also. Symantec owns PCTools why is that? :argh:.
     
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Because I assume that symantec one is user friendly and that from PC Tools is not.
     
  7. Wildest

    Wildest Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Posts:
    304
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Frankly, I don't care who owns PCTools.
    Competition may not be kind to commercial interests, but it is the end-user's best friend.

    Symantec became too comfortable, and then there was Kaspersky... and Symantec was forced to respond with NIS 2009.
    CIS forced an Online Armor Free, and then came Outpost Free...
    Now there is PCTools; what does it matter who is behind it?

    Nothing hurts a coder more than hearing that his/her code sucks.

    If there is enough noise, no matter how irrational, Comodo will be forced to respond, in turn forcing other commercial concerns to respond, and the cycle repeats itself.

    In conclusion, the greatest beneficiary of competition is the end-user.

    W.
     
  8. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    wow PC Tools, for such an easy to use, low alert FW, im amazed it did so good, good job guys at PC Tools :thumb:
     
  9. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    To me the bottom line is the engine. Some are mocking CIS because PCTools placed higher on the latest matousec test. While most did not even care to state that PCtools also beat Symantec, a company that Symantec owns. :D :argh:
     
  10. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    You are too subjective. You were mocking a product against the other. A better response would have been to encourage a company to improve its product. In the end we are all against malware. Mocking a product is quite childish, with all due respect.
     
  11. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    they may own it, but i believe they kept the same setup over at pc tools and is just the parent company, but didnt really change the devs. so i guess with the diff devs at pc tools is why.
     
  12. Wildest

    Wildest Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Posts:
    304
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    I am sorry, but your characterization of my post as being "childish", is itself subjective commentary.
     
  13. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    My point was not to figure out where PCTool fits within Symantec corporate structure. My point was about objectivity. If one is mocking CIS because PCTools placed higher than it. Well then the same mockery should be applied to Symantec as well, if not even more; since PCtools left Symantec in the dust :D . Please be objective people. :).
     
  14. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Thanks for your understanding. :)
     
  15. tipstir

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Who's doing these testing. Is this person here or what? PC Tools has always been my favorite but 4,& 5 versions were awful on the system and applications would crashed or just plain and simple won't run or launch! So I would have to test out 6 and see if that bug is still around still? With 3.14 it was robust with code injection. Digital Signatures feature was a disaster for me.

    CIS firewall is better than RIS (firewall) but not with it's HIPS nor AV. CIS defense plus has been giving me issues so I disabled it and use of all programs Spyware Terminator has HIPs seems to do the same thing that CIS did but, in a better way. Anyway that's my two cents if version 6 doesn't hang applications then cool!
     
  16. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,558
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Comodo still kills this FW in terms of memory usage. PCT-FW is using about 23meg on my machine. Comodo, with AV & HIPs only uses about 7-8 meg.
     
  17. SammyJack

    SammyJack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Posts:
    129
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    I do not understand how saying PC Tools beat Comodo in Matousec tests,
    is some how "mocking" Comodo.

    Comodo and Online Armour are normally in the top two positions.

    Several jockey for place three.

    When PC Tools moved into second place,who would you say it beat?

    To fail to note PC Tools also beat the Symantec Firewall, is no more relevant than to say it beat FortKnox Personal Firewall.
    Neither of these two are normally in the top three.
     
  18. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,558
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    I agree. Give Comodo and OA time, and there next versions will be back on top.
     
  19. dallas7

    dallas7 Guest

    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    I wonder the same about Outpost Free and Pro at 6.7.2957.446.0711 and 6.5.1.22725.381.0687 respectively, Avira 9.0.0.408 among others - too many others. As a result, all the Look Who's On Top! chatter amounts to merely one big ~Snip~ contest. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2009
  20. tipstir

    tipstir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Location:
    SFL, USA
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Won't bail out CIS Firewall, but Spyware Terminator HIPs seems better then CIS Defense. Still RIS has better HIPs firewall is weaker than CIS. I think to much stuff running it too much of a good thing.
     
  21. pegr

    pegr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Posts:
    2,279
    Location:
    UK
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    You are correct. The HIPS component in PC Tools is called ESV (Enhanced Security Verification).

    Comparing Comodo and PC Tools firewalls (not an A vs B post or anything like that, just some observations from my own experience of using both firewalls at different times), the first thing I want to say is that both are fine firewalls. On systems for which both are compatible, the choice between them is largely a question of how each performs, and user preference in terms of features and usability.

    Now on to my own experiences: -

    I found Comodo v3 to be very buggy when it was first released and it drove me nuts with alerts, so I switched to PC Tools v4. (Before that I was using Comodo v2 but didn't want to revert to an end-of-life application.) I have been using PC Tools right up to v5, with ESV enabled, and have found it to be very stable on my system, with an acceptable (to me that is) level of alerts.

    I have tried PC Tools v6 but it seems very buggy and doesn't work properly on my 32-bit XP Pro system. Of course, it's not uncommon for there to be teething problems with new software versions and I expect that PC Tools will do some bug fixing in due course.

    Instead of reverting back to PC Tools v5, I was curious to see how Comodo has progressed since I last tried it, so I installed just the firewall (not the antivirus). I am very pleased to say that Comodo is now running very smoothly on my system. The number of alerts has reduced substantially, even though I am using the Proactive Security profile with the Firewall and Defense+ both enabled in Safe mode.

    Some direct comparisons: -

    1. Both programs are FREE! (Amazing really given the amount of development effort that must have gone into producing two programs of such high quality - as reflected by their scores at Matousec.)

    2. PC Tools is still a little quieter than Comodo with the HIPS component in each firewall enabled.

    3. Comodo's Defense+ is more configurable than PC Tools' ESV and allows for a finer level of granular control. For anybody wanting a full-featured classical HIPS, Defense+ is a good choice.

    4. Comodo with Defense+ enabled has a higher learning curve than PC Tools with ESV enabled. IMHO, Defense+ is not beyond the capability of anybody who is prepared to take the time to read the help file to understand it and learn how to use it effectively, but not everybody wants to have to do this. For experienced users who prefer a fit-and-forget solution and for novice users, PC Tools may be more suitable (unless Defense+ is disabled of course but then the outbound protective capability of the Comodo firewall will be somewhat weakened).

    5. Comodo uses less memory than PC Tools. The total memory usage of PC Tools v6 on my system was up a little (around 4Mb) from v5. On my system, both PC Tools v6 and Comodo use the same amount of memory as user "clocks" has reported.

    6. ESV, the HIPS component in PC Tools, has been reported as troublesome on some systems. I have never experienced this personally, but it's something to be aware of. Of course, the instability problems that some people have experienced in v5 with ESV enabled may now be fixed in the latest version. Only time will tell.

    7. Both programs seem equally light in terms of firewall performance (at least on my system) in the sense that I haven't noticed any slowdown when using the Internet.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2009
  22. SammyJack

    SammyJack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Posts:
    129
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Pegr:

    Thank you,that was a most beneficial post.
    I know more about PC Tools Firewall now.
     
  23. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,433
    Location:
    Europe
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Folks, we all know well that no one single software can warrant the security. I like CIS but OA too, and OSSS beta, but I go on using a multi layer security system, not one-program based.:)
     
  24. Manide

    Manide Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Go here, scroll down and read Methodology and rules#Product's selection and vendors rights

     
  25. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Re: PC Tools Firewall 6 beets Comodo at Matousec

    Well then PCTools beat a lot of security software and yet only Comodo got mentioned why is that? PCTools beats also Symantec. Why is it that I could not find a thread that said: HEY PCTOOLS BEATS SYMANTEC THE COMPANY WHICH OWNS THEM, ISN'T THAT BITING THE HANDS THAT FEED YOU. :argh: ".

    That's where the mocking is. To me this thread was created only with the purpose to bemean Comodo. Like I said before we are all against malware so to single out a company and beat it to death in the end only the malware makers win. Let us all stop and encourage other companies who placed lower to do better by making constructive suggestions with respect to our security needs and consequently be better protected against malware.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2009
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.