Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by atomomega, Feb 18, 2011.
thx for update
cant find norton ??
Symantic is near the middle. I can't find Panda.
thx , got it ... surprising results
Everyone keeps saying eset are doing poorly in tests,I think they're doing great, when you concider some of the massive multi engine resource zapping bloat donkies they're nearly as good as..
Thanks for update
Panda is not included??
it would be interesting to have 2 separate quadrants for single and multi-engine AVs.
and a second thingy i had in mind: some ppl bashing eset every time some rigged test pops up never comment when most respected test org place eset among top....
(not that i personally trust even 1 testing org but its part of the game)
I agree. I actually think Norton is possibly the best AV out there currently.
Thanks for the info Are the products allowed to connect to their online database and use features like HIPS during testing? My guess is the products are tested with only offline signature database.
Thanks stratoc, this made me me laugh out loud.
Well, if you look at the previous RAP test results, Norton has never been above the middle. Bear in mind that these RAP tests are based on on-demand scan and detection results, where Norton rarely shines - see the AV comparatives on demand retrospective results - middle again most of the time. SONAR is not tested here, that's why the results. Do not confuse dynamic tests with VB RAP tests.
Is it Norton or Endpoint Security? 'Cause the latter's detection is not as good as the former's.
Good point, but it makes this test kind of worthless. At the very least you need to take these results with a gain of salt.
I don't think it's worthless - it's exactly what it is - checking detection of the pure AV capabilities of the products - their heuristics and generic detections, no SONARS, HIPS or Behaviour blockers.
Right, because I often like to disable all the newer features of my AV programs.
Of course not, don't get me wrong but that test does not claim anything more than what it really is and as such it is really good and according to my observations on the AVs I've used and tested on my PC it's correct. Nowhere does it say that it's a thorough protection test and I really don't know why should you criticize it on grounds it does not pretend to cover?
Perhaps not entirely worthless,but misleading in regards to the overall protection offered by the various products.
Well, to tell the truth there are many misleading tests in one way or another out there and every vendor takes the ones which speak of him best. Not to mention that many of the ads on the websites of the vendors are pure (misleading) marketing. But who is going to say on their site - well buy our product but you know, you can't trust it 100% as no AV is perfect. Well that'll be a marketing suicide in a way.
Yes that's quite true.
Unfortunately while people who frequent forums like this can take these tests in context,in the wider world where users tend to base everything on detection numbers,it's easy to manipulate results to suit.
Not a bad scorer for Vipre . At least they participated.
Vipre has always tested well for me. I think their signatures and IP filter are outstanding.
Results are kinda as always, EAM used to be at the top seems like not this time
The reason is that this test is done without Internet-connectivity, so no connection to cloud-based scanning is allowed.
Separate names with a comma.