PCMag on CIS vs Symantec

This is in relation to this thread here:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=282360&highlight=melih

Im going to point out the obvious right away.

Symantec goes back to tests that they paid to get good ratings in including PCMag. We all know PCMag gets paid to say what they say about the "big" companies.

Whats funny is that the tests they try to quote would never test CIS correctly and the way its supposed to be tested.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369524,00.asp

 

ive always been curious if Comodo will EVER include itself in AV-C... they seem to be just beating around the bush trying to makeup any excuse they can to justify themselves.

 

PCMag uses AV-Test.org, so in essence you are inferring that Symantec is paying off a well-respected testing firm. I also agree that Comodo should allow their product to be tested by the respected independent labs instead of just calling a company out. If they can allow matousec to test the firewall then allow IBK to put them thru the ringer.

 

Really? If that were true then this here would put MSE and Avast below Norton which it didnt. It would also put Kingsoft and Sophos near the tail end:

http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/12/av-comparatives_rates_anti-mal.php

That link by PCMag also proves that PCMags article in the OP is nothing but garbage designed to stir up more garbage.