Virus Removal ability as a criteria

Just a short question for the experts: why is it that the ability of anti-virus programs to to effectively neutralise a detection (whether it's renaming, disinfecting, deleting, or quarantining) is rarely, at least to my knowledge, taken into account when calculating the effectiveness of a product?

I've never seen such criteria listed as an index for effectiveness: is there a reason? What good is an antivirus program if it's fantastic at detection, but lousy at disinfection? What good is removal of the infected file as the only option if the file is a crucial system file or document?

In people's experiences, what AVs have they encountered that have been the better ones at curing, not just detecting?

Apologies for a stupid question in advance

 

Well the best ever at removal was avast!. Its Boot-Time scan beats all other vendors attempts. I have also never heard that Kaspersky had any problems removing any malware. But on other hand i had many cases with NOD32 and Norton where that Virus detected popup fell into infinite loop. Not good.

 

I think i ask this question earlier. And i think some body answer / ask me in a way that i thought he was quite right.

Would there be a need of High Removal ability when the AV stops ALL Virus into your System in the first place?

 

But since no AV is 100% you also need good removal ability.
And NOD32 for example did stopped the malware at the entry point,but everything messed up when its popup window fell into infinite loop,detecting the same malware over and over again even if i choosed Delete every time.

 

Command av and mcafee usually don't have problems with disinfection but there are some that can't be disinfected but have to be quarantined and handled manually.