Scanning speed is nice but it doesn't actually protect your PC. And there are trade offs ESET has made for scanning speed. Some trade offs that do involve proactive rather than reactive detection. (KAV for example is not known for being a speedster, but it apparently can do some things NOD can't in terms of detecting without actually first uncompressing a compressed file and/or running an executable. And that is important to a lot of people.) Detection performance is the critical factor I've been discussing here and is where the testing methodology is critical. The test unquestionably indicates that Norton and McAfee have the best detection rates. So I do not concur that a careful reader would come away after reading the test results with the conclusion that NOD is the best scanner. I certainly don't. The 31 false positives alone are enough to sink it in that competition. I don't necessarily credit the false positive results as I noted earlier. But in my view false positives can be more dangerous than a missed virus if a user cripples his system based on trusting an AV when it's reporting fp's (as some novice Dr. Web users have discovered). No way is a reader, casual or otherwise, going to consider NOD the "best" AV based on that test's results.