AV-Comparatives AV-Comparatives Malware Protection Test: SEP 2023

[Spartan]

Chart

Full Article

 

[micasayyo]

ESET, very good

 

[Anthony Qian]

It's nice to see AV-Comparatives uses truly "advanced" and "new" malware samples to test AVs, as none of them are able to block all of the samples!

Also pleased with K's, ESET's and Avira's performance.

It's a pity that F-Secure is unable to obtain certification due to too many FPs. I feel most FPs are produced by DeepGuard because it tends to block rare and new files.

 

[Moonhorse]

Panda protection rate 94,4% & kaspersky 99,97% wow theyre almost identical where it comes into protection! Kaspersky even has more false positives!

Wow im impressed ! im going to install panda right now!

 

[Anthony Qian]

Panda protection rate 94,4% & kaspersky 99,97% wow theyre almost identical where it comes into protection! Kaspersky even has more false positives!

Wow im impressed ! im going to install panda right now!

It's not almost identical in terms of protection...

In fact, Panda's 99.41% is the third worst result in this test. As a result, Panda only received one star overall, whereas Kaspersky is a three-star product.

 

[Moonhorse]

It's not almost identical in terms of protection...

In fact, Panda's 99.41% is the third worst result in this test. As a result, Panda only received one star overall, whereas Kaspersky is a three-star product.

Because of offline detection

 

[Jengo]

GData is improving alot now a days, but i will never use it anymore.... too bad....

 

[ForgottenSeer 93475]

This test shows how an antivirus behaves with certain threats, in a specific environment and under certain conditions.
We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use.

sorry, but I will continue to use the security product I am using now, the only case that makes me replace it with another security product is failure in my own environment and not test environments that differ from one person to another

 

[ForgottenSeer 100397]

Panda protection rate 94,4% & kaspersky 99,97% wow theyre almost identical where it comes into protection! Kaspersky even has more false positives!

Wow im impressed ! im going to install panda right now!

Panda's performance strongly suggests the use of illicit substances or performance-enhancing drugs!

 

[simmerskool]

It's a pity that F-Secure is unable to obtain certification due to too many FPs. I feel most FPs are produced by DeepGuard because it tends to block rare and new files.

... but my real-life experience running FS with DeepGuard, I had very few false+ (perhaps it depends where you're surfing and downloading)... fwiw

 

[simmerskool]

GData is improving alot now a days, but i will never use it anymore.... too bad....

what happened?

 

[simmerskool]

sorry, but I will continue to use the security product I am using now, the only case that makes me replace it with another security product is failure in my own environment and not test environments that differ from one person to another

... or when you go to renew expiring license and AV charges you 3x$...

 

[Anthony Qian]

... but my real-life experience running FS with DeepGuard, I had very few false+ (perhaps it depends where you're surfing and downloading)... fwiw

Yeah, in my testing, besides APC and other cloud-based detection (DeepGuard has been nicely integrated with APC and F-S’s own cloud) and behavioral detection, a majority of the DeepGuard detections is just because the application is rare. I’m sure there is an algorithm and whitelisting system in place to reduce FPs, because not all rare applications are blocked by DeepGuard. However due to geographical footprint, in some regions, DeepGuard produced a lot of FPs.

I am happy to see AV-C uses a variety of clean samples to test AVs.

 

[SumTingWong]

F-Secure is the king of false positives in this test

 

[Jengo]

what happened?

Too many small bugs, lousy interface, no support etc.