What makes me think of Panda is that some members, like @oldschool and @TairikuOkami, thought it was good.
Comparing to other solutions it did not perform that great. Their online execution detection rate of original file was second lowest, although it was 99.91%. Most vendors scored 100%.Scored great for "on-execution"! I need some explanation
Scored (99.82%) better than Bitdefender (99.5%), ESET (99.59%), Kaspersky (99.78%), McAfee (98.68%), Sophos (91.95%), and TrendMicro (93.26%).
It performed great IMO. I also like that it's not too dependent on cloud, but cloud still improves it's detection rate - similar as Kaspersky.
how else would you test a solution against an unknown APT? If I want to know that my soultion K will prevent any future event Y how would I go about it? You do it the same way you develop new vaccines. You take the known component, strip out the malicious part but leave the surface proteins intact. Then you watch if an immune system mounts a defense against it and which parts of the immune system mount the defense against it. If the protein goes through unaffected then your test failed and your immune system won't protect you against this specific strain of the virus. However let say the protein bypasses your innate barrier (skin / firewall) and enters the organism (network), there it bypasses macrophages and neutrophils and it goes unnoticed (first layer of the defense at depth), then it moves on adaptive response (heuristics / AI / ML whatever new shiny term exists) here T cells, Antigens and B cells take over analyzing the protein and it's payload. If the adaptive immune system discovers that the payload is malicious then it's destroyed else the payload proceeds down the line.
If I were a corporation I would consider this data point and await more data. One point does not solution make.
We have said this in a certain context: it's good in that it's light weight, like having no AV at all.
Which is why @TairikuOkami has used it in the past when he didn't uninstall MS Defender.
people use it but do not mention it.
yeah me and my honeypots would agreeThe bad habit of playing with fancy security solutions
I agree with your first paragraphOnce again, Kaspersky and ESET have shown why they’re so highly regarded in our forum. Many people choose Kaspersky for personal or corporate use, even if they don’t openly discuss it here, as some members have pointed out Outside the United States, it remains a top option and often the first logical choice for both personal and corporate needs. As for ESET, it continues to win people over simply by working well, delivering strong performance and reliable detection. Both have proven why the pros trust them.
the K is actually the you know who of this forum
but, is it a bit of a sad commentary that members here wouldn't mention what they use, i.e. Kaspersky? or anything other than **** AV for concern of being questioned, called out for using it? Fortunately, most of the members here get it, of what we, they, use and why I went back to K.I agree with your first paragraph
It suits me best. It’s a fateful love, and I can’t get rid of it. 
+1 I also like Panda because it’s a super lightweight antivirus, followed by Webroot. It’s a shame it isn’t very effective. If I had no other choice, I’d use Panda. But since there are other, more robust products on the market to choose from, I decided to go with a different one.We have said this in a certain context: it's good in that it's light weight, like having no AV at all.
K/Avira with a very tiny margin.
