Virus.GR test (Semptember 2009)

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by tiagozt, Sep 13, 2009.

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

    tiagozt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    331
    New virus.gr test by virusp:

    More info:
    www. virus. gr

    Partial ranking:

    Rank

    1. G DATA 2009 20.0.2.1 - 98,89%
    2. F-Secure 2009 9.00.148 - 98,72%
    3. Kaspersky 2010 9.0.0.463 - 98,67%
    4. AntiVir 9.0.0.381 Premium - 98,64%
    5. ZoneAlarm Antivirus 8.0.400.020 - 98,62%
    6. AntiVir 9.0.0.407 Personal - 98,56%
    7. Ashampoo 1.61 - 98,48%
    8. MultiCore 2.001.00036 - 98,36%
    9. Paretologic 6.1.1 - 98,11%
    10. TrustPort 2.8.0.2255 - 98,03%
    11. eScan 10.0.977.4091 - 97,82%
    12. The Shield 2009 12.0.12 - 97,72%
    13. BitDefender 2010 11.0.15.297 - 97,61%
    14. Ikarus 1.0.97 - 97,15%
    15. AVG 8.5.392 Free - 97%
    16. BitDefender 2009 12.0.12.0 Free - 96,37%
    17. Nod32 4.0.437.0 - 95,97%
    18. Avast 4.8.1335 Free - 95,87%
    19. Comodo 3.9.95478.509 - 95,57%
    20. Trend Micro Antivirus 17.1.1250 - 95,36%

    READ the report in the website!
     
  2. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    avira ranked 4th!.......I think I'll ditch it right now :rolleyes: :D
     
  3. BrendanK.

    BrendanK. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    520
    Location:
    Australia
    Ashampoo is the real surprise there!:thumb:
     
  4. NobleT

    NobleT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Posts:
    58
    ashampoo antivirus use avira's engine for antivirus and use a2's engine for antispyware.so why the score is not identical to avirao_O??
     
  5. BrendanK.

    BrendanK. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    520
    Location:
    Australia
    They tested IObit...:rolleyes:

    They probably should of read what Security 360 is before testing it :p
     
  6. Cloud_Shadow

    Cloud_Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Posts:
    46
    If the results are to be somewhat believed, it actually is quite good to see comodo catching almost the same amount compared to Avast. Which i think is a great achievemnt.
     
  7. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    0-96% is the easy part its the 96-99% that's the real kicker. :D
     
  8. sourav_gho

    sourav_gho Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Posts:
    141
    yes Comodo is the biggest improver with over 121% improvement in detection and over 87% improvement in scanning speed. Great results for them.
    But there is no mention of false positives...:(
     
  9. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    I don't think Ashampoo even sells their av anymore. But I believe the version of Ashampoo used an older avira engine and signatures- back when avira was av only, no antispyware. I don't think the Ashampoo product had been upgraded for the last 18 months or so.
     
  10. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    Interesting to see Paretologic included in this test,it's a company that's considered a borderline rogue by some observers.:doubt:

    Also they say
    "The test was carried out between 10 August-05 September 2009 in PC Pentium Dual Core 2Ghz, 2048MB DDRAM-2 and functional Windows XP Professional SP3.

    All programs tested had the latest versions, upgrades and updates and used the full potential of each program, such as heuristics, etc."

    Wouldn't that mean that the products tested later had an advantage?
     
  11. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    Well that test was certainly good for a laugh.
     
  12. cqpreson

    cqpreson Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Posts:
    348
    Location:
    China
    To my surprise,comodo has high score:eek: .Its antivirus component didn't release for a long time.It develops so fast.
     
  13. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,731
    Location:
    localhost
    as many others, but still useful... and results not so far from other tests.
     
  14. Thankful

    Thankful Savings Monitor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Posts:
    3,744
    Location:
    New York City
    Norton at 87.37% ? No. I'll wait for AV-Comparatives.
     
  15. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Weird results. I'll wait for AV-Comparatives as well.
     
  16. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    me to.
     
  17. Tweakie

    Tweakie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Posts:
    90
    Location:
    E.U.
    There is at least one obvious error in the testing protocol: they are measuring the scanning speed on infected samples, whereas it should be measured from a clean set. This measurement only has a value for...anti-virus testers !

    What's nice about this test is that it somewhat gives an idea of the detection rate of products that are not (yet) tested anywhere else. Yet, the results of Norton, Sophos and Panda are a quite surprising!
     
  18. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    I agree.
    The only program that I would have liked to have seen on that list is FortiClient.
     
  19. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    sometimes this tests are accurate then you know.;)
     
  20. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    @Tweakie

    Are you Dark Avenger? :p

    Sorry for this OT, couldn't resist.
     
  21. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I wouldn't. :D
     
  22. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The difference between the two products is insignificant and probably just amounts to when exactly the image was frozen with the latest updates of the time in place. virus.gr does not have nearly as good resources as any professional AV testing organization, and hence all products are installed and images frozen with the products updated to the signatures of the same day. However, I believe the signatures were frozen at different times during the day, due to which it is highly possible the higher detection rate of AntiVir Premium is just a matter of older vs. newer signatures. :)
     
  23. simisg

    simisg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Posts:
    410
    Location:
    Greece
    i don't trust these results and i dont trust this tester.... don't ask me why
    there are also some rogue software inside this test........
     
  24. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I admit that I don't know how tests are conducted. However, the differences in F-Secure in this test and AVC tests seem too large.
    Accordingly I have some reservations about the Virus GR test.

    PS Is it mid September yet? :)

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  25. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    For those with some spare time: perform a search over on our main page for Petrakis. Happy reading ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.