Test of some AV on demand scan times

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Ned Slider, Aug 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ned Slider

    Ned Slider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Posts:
    169
    Hi folks,

    I was interested to test some common AV scanners on demand scan times, so I thought I'd share with you here.

    This wasn't designed to be a scientific test but more for my own curiosity, but here's the methodology I used. I scanned a copy of my Windows folder containing 1.55GB of mixed files and compressed archives etc. This contained 11,356 files and 531 folders. Each AV program was set to perform a full on demand scan of the target directory and where available options to scan all files, unpack archive and scan inside compressed files etc were enabled, otherwise the default options were used. Tests were performed on WinXP SP2 with no background tasks running, the latest AV updates were applied and the test folder was free of viruses. I simply report the info reported by the AV program together with the scan time (min:sec):

    KAV Personal 5.0.372

    Objects scanned: 45,778
    Time: 4:58

    F-Secure WS V4.07 (AVP: 3.0; F-PROT: 3.06) - this is an old version circa 1999

    Files scanned: 86,315
    Time: 7:05

    F-Secure AV 2005 (AVP: 6.0; Libra: 2.01; Orion: 1.02)

    Files scanned: 22,740
    Time: 9:00

    McAfee Command Line Scanner (Engine 4400)

    Files scanned: 25,249
    Time: 4:10

    MWAV e-Scan V4.4.7

    Files scanned: 11,356 (doesn't report expanded number for scanning inside compressed files/archives although this was clearly performed)
    Time: 7:03

    BitDefender 8 Free Edition

    Files scanned: 50,116
    Folders: 531; Archives: 374; Packed Programs: 2115; Files/sec: 175
    Time: 4:45

    Avast 4.6 Home Edition

    Size of files scanned: 2.2GB
    Time: 4:37

    If anyone wants to compare other scanners that I've not tested I would suggest you scan your Windows folder with one of the scanners I've used to create a baseline time for your system and then use your scanner of choice and correct the time accordingly using your baseline to enable an indirect comparison to the times I obtained.

    Hope some might find this useful or interesting.

    Ned
     
  2. gigaman

    gigaman Guest

    avast! should be able to display the number of scanned objects as well. If it's not visible in the Simple User Interface window, you may try to use the Explorer Extension ("Quick scanner") instead. It uses maximum sensitivity by default; make sure, however, that you have the necessary options set in program settings ("Quit after first virus is found" disabled, "Show results of Explorer Extension" enabled).
    Or, you may turn on the creation of the report file, including any records available.
     
  3. abhi_mittal

    abhi_mittal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    887
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Good job Ned! appreciate it
     
  4. fosius

    fosius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Posts:
    479
    Location:
    Partizanske, Slovakia
    That's not good idea to test WINDOWS folder on other PCs than yours because every PC has different content of WINDOWS folder... But if you have a time try NOD32 I would like to see how fast is:)
     
  5. Ned Slider

    Ned Slider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Posts:
    169
    Yes, I know that - and the times will of course inevitably be different, which is why I suggested people also use a scanner that I've used as a baseline to calculate a correction factor to enable an indirect comparison :)

    The reason for using the Windows directory is that everyone has one and the makeup of the content should be broadly similar, it has a good range of files (small through to large compressed archives), and is typical of the target likely to be scanned.

    I don't have a copy of NOD32 to test. I'm not sure if I could install an evaluation copy alongside KAV or if they would conflict (I would of course disable KAV but it's still enabled if a reboot is required). If anyone with experience of NOD32 can assist, I'd certainly be interested in testing that too as it seems quite popular here.

    Ned
     
  6. Ned Slider

    Ned Slider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Posts:
    169

    OK, thanks for that. It was the first time I've used Avast - I figured out how to turn on full scanning of all files, but to be honest I hated the skinned interface and uninstalled it immediately after running the scan. I'm sure it's a good AV, but the interface just wasn't for me. Scan times were certainly comparable to other products though.

    It obviously did scan inside archives and compressed files as the scanned files were reported as 2.2GB whereas the size of the test directory was only 1.55GB on disk.

    Ned
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.