A general antivirus comparison!

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JM Safe

Level 39
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Apr 12, 2015
2,882
19,912
3,798
Europe
Content source
http://articoli.softonic.it/comparativa-antivirus-gratis-pagamento
Hi guys.
I'm making this post to show you the general comparison of the best antivirus!!

1-494x568.png


2-568x334.png


3-482x568.png


antivirus-comparison-2015-performance-chart-568x357.png


41-568x333.png


5-568x334.png


AND THE WINNER IS...

comparativa-antivirus-ganadores-2015.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Balrog, Venustus, omidomi and 8 others
For signature\heuristics-only protection this comparison is generally correct... as that is what the labs are actually testing.

However, the labs do not evaluate other protections - such as firewall, behavioral monitoring, anti-exploit, host intrusion prevention system, etc.

Some AVs have these features, others do not. Labs follow testing methodology to allow for consistent, meaningful comparison between AVs - so they test scan engine - which each AV does have.

At least that is my understanding from reading the various test lab methodologies and AMSTO guidelines.

For better or worse - Everybody likes ranking lists - whether it is cars, toaster ovens, universities or security softs. And everybody likes a winner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: JM Safe
hjlbx said:
For signature\heuristics-only protection this comparison is generally correct... as that is what the labs are actually testing.

However, the labs do not evaluate other protections - such as firewall, behavioral monitoring, anti-exploit, host intrusion prevention system, etc.

Some AVs have these features, others do not. Labs follow testing methodology to allow for consistent, meaningful comparison between AVs - so they test scan engine - which each AV does have.

At least that is my understanding from reading the various test lab methodologies and AMSTO guidelines.

For better or worse - Everybody likes ranking lists - whether it is cars, toaster ovens, universities or security softs. And everybody likes a winner.
Click to expand...

Most tests single out ONE component and test it, the major problem with those tests is that they do not test the program with all components at the same time.
For example: AV X has a weak firewall compared to AV Z yet due to additional components AV X suddenly has a better FW then the great china wall while AV Z totally sucks..
Most AV solutions perform much better then indicated tests if tested as a whole instead of component versus component.

See my point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoraMurdar
Piteko21 said:
ESET is much better than Norton and Kingsoft, sorry norton fanboys, but it's my opinion from my experiences...
Avg has a lot of progress.
Click to expand...

Lol alright personal pref...thats ok.
Truth is that ESET, Kaspersky Norton and a bunch of other names are literally in the same ball park here.
Which means that there is no "better" one as they are down the line equal each with their own cons and pro's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: omidomi and Piteko21
Nico@FMA said:
Lol alright personal pref...thats ok.
Truth is that ESET, Kaspersky Norton and a bunch of other names are literally in the same ball park here.
Which means that there is no "better" one as they are down the line equal each with their own cons and pro's.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to say that ESET wins in terms of signatures , beating Norton and Kingsoft . however, I recognize that Norton has an excellent firewall, one of the best on the market and the "Sonar technology" combine with his reputation system "norton insight" , gives better protection that ESET.
I think these graphs reflect only the detection by signatures. -- (corrected my opening idea) ;)
 
Nico@FMA said:
AV X suddenly has a better FW then the great china wall while AV Z totally sucks..
Most AV solutions perform much better then indicated tests if tested as a whole instead of component versus component.
Click to expand...

Very well said. That is major point that is not immediately apparent to typical AV test lab report reader...

Lot's of "splitting hairs" when it comes to widely established good AVs - e.g. ESET vs Norton vs Emsi vs Kasper.

It's fun to debate, but in practical terms I think it is mostly useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kent and yigido
The test conducted is pretty much close as always on who will be the winner every year (same name of candidates)

Base on test, its a little bit unfair where some AV's did not join on Dennis Lab therefore averaging the percentage varies + unless 100% which means survived all the test and can get high rank position.

In formality of test I'm not sure if it does counted the user interaction basis (BB, HIPS) cause it makes overall efficiency of protection decrease in terms of blocking when separated.

Sometimes heuristics test is the only realistic way to show how perform at mediocre protection as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM Safe and Venustus
Results shown are very inconsistent with each other. They are really dependant on the types of samples used and the method of testing and grading them individually. Like how Microsoft has a higher score than Avast, AVG and Panda?? And how Microsoft is ranked very closely to ESET, which is most definitely not the case here. Obviously we can't just blindly follow the tests that are shown here, the information might not even be correct (I checked AV comparatives and found no such value).
 
yes AVG is improving bit by bit , in the upcomming weeks we as Hof's will get more insight , what the future of the company and the product will hold : their goal to be " THE " security company that is going to be allround on all fronts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM Safe
I am also going to say that the numbers are not as fair because the averages are from different labs who test the programs in a different way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

You may also like...