PC World AV Chart

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by eBBox, Apr 23, 2007.

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

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Oh my gosh I didn't even notice that. Now i totally do not trust this test.
     
  2. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    well its avg pro, (but its still not avg anti-malware) and it beat nod32.

    like i said, nod would be lost without its heuristics, ive always said they put to much emphasis on heuristic detections.

    nod32 was the WORST on file viruses. tut tut
     
  3. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Im stil skeptical. I really do not believe that AVG pro should be able to beat NOD32. Yeah NOD32 relies too heavily on heuristics though. 79% holy.
     
  4. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    @ MalwareDie

    but yeah, nod was poor... but as expected, its heuristcs were sky high!!! *lol*
     
  5. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    nice results. Hope they'll test Avira AntiVir too in the future. Now, NOD32 is going down again even if some still continue to praise it. I feel sorry for them because I have used it for a long time but this is it... it's their politics. Congratulations to AVG and also to Bit Defender. :thumb:
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    No, the results are beginning to get consistent.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129883-page,3-c,antivirus/article.html

    The sample set was wider than AV-comparatives, and the results came out quite good actually. I didn't expect AVG (Pro) to score better than NOD32, but it is clear that even I myself have underestimated AVG.

    But AVG was always good at trojan detection, and the 7.5 version brought some radical changes. Also in the last AV-test.org performed test, AVG was hot on the heels of NOD32, only being some 0.5% behind if I remember correctly. :)

    Besides, I've noticed that NOD32 has never been as good in AV-test.org's tests as it has been on AV-comparatives. Has to be something with the sample set, because I assure you the sample set makes all the difference. :)
     
  7. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,875
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    AVC used over 1 million samples if we also count the adware and dialers...
    1,5 million if we count also the garbage :p
     
  8. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Forgot about that part. Duh!

    Anyway, so in this case I suppose it would all boil down to the sample set used huh? o_O
    BTW, half a million files of garbage? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
     
  9. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    I keep saying Nod is fading away. And now you want the new suite. Forget it. There are 5 better ones. Eset has really dropped the ball on what was once a great product. Hmm,wonder why it went downhill.:rolleyes:
     
  10. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    I've been told by certain sources that Eset makes a "decision" before adding each sample to the signature database because adding unnecessary signatures will either slow NOD32 down or increase its resource/memory consumption due to increasing the size of the database. Therefore, careful decisions are to be made before making signatures for Droppers and Downloaders, so that the database size and speed of NOD32 is not compromised. This would require making compact, space saving and efficient signatures which would take a bit longer to create compared to standard detection routines.

    The above info is not from Eset directly, but the source claims he got it right out of Eset's staff. Actually, the exact statements told to me did not directly say this, but it was simple enough to deduce this from what I was told. I'm not sure if I can reveal the source at this time though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2007
  11. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    No, its true. The previous PC-Welt test showed these detection rates:

    Test set summary:
    83.000 Worms
    86.000 Bots
    218.000 Trojans
    79.000 Backdoors

    Symantec - 99.08%
    Kaspersky - 98.96%
    BitDefender - 97.45%

    It also showed

    NOD32 - 95.65%
    AVG - 95.25%

    In this PC World test, BitDefender and Norton catch up to KAV primarily because of better spyware detection. Otherwise they'd still be behind KAV. AV-comparatives doesn't include PUP detection as part of its percentage calculation. :)

    A similar thing happens in NOD32 and AVG when AVG overtakes NOD32 in the trojans and spyware detection category. So, if you discount this category, AVG would be 0.4 to 1% behind NOD32. :)

    But Damn I wish they had tested AVG Anti-Malware instead of AVG Pro. It would have thrown a nice spanner in the works. I mean, it only costs $4 more than AVG Pro, so its a lot of value for the money.
     
  12. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Below is the reason why certain products were not included in the testing:

     
  13. extratime

    extratime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Posts:
    100
    Thanks. Now I know why McAfee was not in the review.
     
  14. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    ;)

    Just one question (Mods: sorry for Off-topic): Am I among those 2 posters you talk about who like bashing NOD32? I did explain reasonably why AVG scored better than NOD32 in this test (see above posts). :)
     
  15. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,161
    Location:
    UK / Pakistan
    No problem. It,s a classical forum bash.
     
  16. extratime

    extratime Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Posts:
    100
    Nope not you. (Sorry for the off-topic).
     
  17. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    I thought the Pro lacked anti-spyware detection as well. Could they have tested AVG Anti-Malware and labeled it as Pro?

    Here's the AVG comparison sheet which says Pro has virus detection only.
    http://www4.grisoft.com/doc/products-comparison-home-and-office/us/crp/0
     
  18. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    No, this is a misconception partially created by Grisoft themselves by marketing of AVG Anti-Malware:

    I'll go through this again:

    AVG Free edition: Anti-Virus only
    AVG Pro edition: Anti-Virus and PUP (Potentially Unwanted Program) detection ---> Adware, Spyware, Riskware
    AVG Anti-Malware: Anti-Virus, PUP and Anti-Spyware protection via Ewido technology

    Does that make it clear? :)

    The prices that PC World mentions for AVG Pro are consistent with the prices of AVG Pro. And Andreas Marx always has a habit of testing AVG Pro and Ewido separately instead of using AVG Anti-Malware. So yes, the product tested is AVG Pro, and it indeed detects spyware. :)
     
  19. ccsito

    ccsito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,579
    Location:
    Nation's Capital
    Another round of AV musical chairs. :rolleyes: :D ;) :p o_O
     
  20. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    Eset was fourth, wonder what its ranking would have been with a few other ones thrown in.;)
     
  21. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,641
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    In which case av-test turns out to be the most reliable source for tests? because NOD has started going downhill in latest on.demand av-comparatives tests as well... :)
     
  22. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,226
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    IMO AV-test is as reliable a test as it can get, but thats just my personal opinion. :)
     
  23. Durad

    Durad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Posts:
    594
    Location:
    Canada
    Sorry Firecat but I do not agree with you. For me this test is very similar like the one at virus.gr
    Some AV vendors does not include garbage detection in their signatures.

    I would like to see test where just working samples are included, taken from infected computers, from different parts of the world. Of course unpacked.

    Try to send some garbage "malware" to Eset or F-Prot and see if they gonna add it or not..

    ;)
     
  24. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    I too believe AV-Comp is far better than av-test.
     
  25. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    "Trend Micro AntiVirus plus AntiSpyware 2007" is IMO the winner as the safest scanner in the world
    with False-positive Detection = 0. :)
     
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.