Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by eBBox, Apr 23, 2007.
...of your own, of course!
Kaspersky nummero uno: this test must be reliable !!!!!!
Not much value is given to responsetime to new threats ("deliver signatures for new malware"). I think responsetime is a keyfactor in an AV.
Having written that, I don't agree with ranking Symantec/Norton nr. 2: the slowest of all in reacting.
No wrong, lets get the facts right here. PC World is purely a magazine thats full of ads and (2) VB have been in the AV testing business far more longer than PC World ever will be and this is what their specialty is.
Maybe they are trying to change that with the additon of SONAR... I could be wrong though.
Actually it does have an http scanner===Sonar
I dont think it is posssible for Avast and AVG to beat NOD32 with best possible settigns. So maybe IBK is right.
Are you saying that the PC-Welt test performed earlier is also performed with default settings and not maximum settings? That test also showed Avast to be better than NOD32, and AVG Professional edition to be hot on the heels of NOD32.
In September 2006 PC-Welt test, NOD32 was slightly above Avast and AVG. In November 2006 PC-Welt test, Avast was above NOD32 and NOD32 came between AVG and Avast. And now both Avast and AVG have surpassed NOD32. See a pattern?
The standard settings argument is a rumour at this moment, it is largely unconfirmed. I do remember reading somewhere that Andreas Marx likes to "turn on everything" (i.e. max settings) for all AVs in his tests.
I agree. If I remember right, NOD32 with standard settings doesn't use Advanced Heuristics (AH) at all in On-Demand scan. How could NOD32 score 79 % in proactive test then in Av-test.org test without AH? No way! As always, this "standard settings" is only used in here to underestimate Avast's and AVG's success.
why no one mails to Marx and asks about the settings and let us know? I am interested in the answer too.
If I give you his email ID, will you contact him?
I'm a bit apprehensive about contacting him, thats why I haven't sent off an email yet.
I have sent an email to Andreas Marx asking this question. I hope he replies to me.
I emailed Andreas yesterday asking this very question. Andreas replied forwarding my email to Erik Larkin (of PC World) who would answer.
I am awaiting a reply from Erik.
Ok I got a reply from Erik Larken of PC World. He confirmed that the on-demand detection tests were performed using the best settings of the respective AVs.
As a further note he added that system slowdown tests (performed in the PC World labs) were done using the default settings of the respective AVs.
I did not know that, thanks bigc.
you know what... it really seems that norton is stepping up and starting to really step up and become leaders in the antimalware world...
they have always been top dog, or near enough ....
they only got bad reviews due to un-installing errors / liveupdate errors and for being damn heavy on system performance,
2007 have fixed all these, and finally! about time
Isn't competition great? I think over the past couple of years Symantec realized that the little fish were starting to make big waves in the antivirus pond.
I think I'll just jump out a window and be done with it.
I just paid for NOD32 2 days ago.
Also, I'm wondering why GDATA AVK and AntiVir weren't tested.
Reading AV Comparatives, these 2 anti viruses seem to be on the top of the pile.
(*&^*&^%&*^$%&$%#^- I'm really disgusted. Whatever happened to NOD32's long running high scores in the tests?
Well, that confirms it then. AVG And Avast! have indeed surpassed NOD32 according to this test. A few things I've noted in the past few days:
1) AV-test.org seems to have always provided a more accurate viewpoint of NOD32's detection rates. I don't know why. Always there is a noticeable difference in detection rates between NOD32 at AV-test.org and NOD32 at AV-comparatives. Also, I do remember there were disputes between Eset and AV-test in the past, but I do not know whether this has any bearing on this test (I don't think so).
Of course, NOD32 has the best heuristic engine as always.
2) AVG seems to have slowly earned a Norton-like reputation for being "bad". Like NAV, which is continuously bahsed despite its improvements in recent years, AVG is also facing the same today. I've seen quite a few who can't believe that AVG improved to this extent.
3) Avast! is the quiet one, and even this AV shows difference in detection rates between AV-test and AV-comparatives. Overall it provides good protection which is at least on par with NOD32 (excluding heuristics of course).
4) I find that some people are finding it hard to believe that BitDefender scored on par with Kaspersky. In all AV-test.org tests, BitDefender has always been very close to Kaspersky, and Symantec has been very close to KAV as well, sometimes exceeding KAV's detection rates. This behaviour is not seen in AV-comparatives however, but still BitDefender, KAV and Symantec were were close to each other (between 1 to 1.5%), which means they still offer pretty much the same protection level.
IMO BitDefender is the most "balanced" AV with a good mix of high signature and heuristic detection, an almost winning combination if it wasn't for the high resource usage.
It will be even more interesting if I could find out how many samples of each malware type was used in the test.
Maybe the sample size is close to what Frug posted in an older thread about PC-Welt.
New german PC-Welt Test by av-test.org From Nov 2006
NOD32 scored an 84, the same score as Symantec and BitDefender. I certainly wouldn't say it is behind Avast and AVG. Are we looking at the same test??
It's interesting that AVK and Avira scored high in both tests.
And, by the way, you guys aren't helping matters any. After reading what you said I now am upgraded to positively suicidal.
I wonder if i could get my money back.
Suggest you read post #16 in this thread and and relax. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=172626 Your money was well spent.
....and compatability issues.
Separate names with a comma.