Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Some important info:
"In the Malware Protection Test, malicious files are executed on the system. While in the Real-World Protection Test the vector is the web, in the Malware Protection Test the vectors are network drives and USB. "
"If the user is asked to decide whether a malware sample should be allowed to run, and in the case of the worst user decision system changes are observed, the test case is rated as “user-dependent”.

212373


212369


212372


One can see the striking difference with false positives, when comparing real-world test (web malware vector) and malware protection test (network drives and USB vector).
On this test, Trend Micro, Panda, and Microsoft have the poor offline detection rate, but very good protection rate (better than Kaspersky, Eset, F-Secure).
This test shows that the test results can highly depend on the pool of samples. More reliable results can be seen after averaging the results over a year.

From Summary Report 2018 | AV-Comparatives
"
Malware Protection winners
The Malware Protection Test evaluates an AV product’s ability to protect against malware coming from removable devices or network shares. Products must provide a high level of protection without producing too many false alarms. In the Malware Protection Test, all samples not detected on-demand or on-access are executed.
Avast, AVG, AVIRA and Bitdefender scored well in both tests.

Real-World Protection Test winners
Security products include various different features to protect systems against malware. Such protection features are taken into account in the Real-World Protection Test, which test products under realistic Internet usage conditions. Products must provide a high level of protection without producing too many false alarms, and without requiring the user to make a decision as to whether something is harmful or not.
The programs with the best overall results over the course of the year were from: Bitdefender, AVIRA and Kaspersky Lab

False Positives winners
False positives can cause as much trouble as a real infection. Due to this, it is important that anti-virus products undergo stringent quality assurance testing before release to the public, in order to avoid false positives. AV-Comparatives carry out extensive false-positive testing as part of the Malware Protection Tests. Additionally, also false alarms from the Real-World Protection Test are counted for this category.
The products with the lowest rates of false positives during 2018 were ESET (10), AVIRA, Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab (15) and Emsisoft (19). These figures represent the SUM of the false positives from all FP Tests.
"
Post edited.
I do not believe in Avira stellar results (Avira is from Germany and AV-Comparatives is from Austria).
 
Last edited:

Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
I do not trust these results. It is not possible to believe someone this results with little experience in security products. Panda over Kaspersky and F-secure. Tencent over Bitdefender ?????? Tencent is a clone of Bitdefender. This results is ridiculous
Probably the bad result for Eset is the tested older version without "Deep behavioral inspection" :emoji_thinking:
I do not think that the Eset result was bad and there is nothing surprising in Panda better result over Kaspersky. The samples of this test were a very, very small fraction of all malware which showed up in the tested period. The statistical error in such a case can be probably bigger than the difference between any AVs in the test.
If AV-Comparatives could do the test on another pool of samples from February-Mart period, then Eset or Kaspersky could get one of the best results. In such tests, any AV can get the result below average due to statistical fluctuation even when it is the best when tested on all samples from the world. The concrete result in one test is an illusion of protection. The only thing that matters is how often the AV can get a good result and how rare it can get a bad result. If you look at the one-year results, then Eset and Kaspersky are among the best AVs.
 
Last edited:

Nightwalker

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
These tests in no way reflect the real world capabilities of modern security solutions, take them with a grain of salt.

AV-Comparatives isnt in the faulty here, its a very good lab, but its limit is very clear; the problem is that many security vendors learned how to cheat in synthetic tests, they have specialized resources just to make sure that they have good scores.

Anyway almost every antivirus out there is decent nowadays, just be cautious with Trend Micro and Panda because they sucks :D
 

Janl1992l

Level 13
Verified
avast and avg above kaspersky is impossible to believe, I commit suicide
Why is it impossible? Avast detection rate is realy nice. it is the most used free av around the world. Sure it is plausible with just a userbase. Its everytime the same. ever test gets bashed on to not be trust blablabla. To be fair this threads start to be annoying nd useless.
 

Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Why is it impossible? Avast detection rate is realy nice. it is the most used free av around the world. Sure it is plausible with just a userbase. Its everytime the same. ever test gets bashed on to not be trust blablabla. To be fair this threads start to be annoying nd useless.
No need to get emotional. MT threads are not annoying and useless because someone has a different opinion, even when this personal opinion seems wrong to you and me.
Everyone has the right to personal opinions if he/she does not try to present them as a general truth. Furthermore, in the one particular test, every result is possible.

avast and avg above kaspersky is impossible to believe, I commit suicide
I have to admit that I'm a fan of kaspersky (and also eset) and probably not impartial, I've tried avat on some occasion and I've loved the few resources it consumes, maybe when the license expires I give an opportunity to avast. a greeting
translated by Google
Please, do not commit suicide too early.:giggle:

Install Panda > get blue screen > format > 99.9% protection rate baby.
This can be true for any third-party AV (sometimes). :giggle:(y)

...
Anyway almost every antivirus out there is decent nowadays, just be cautious with Trend Micro and Panda because they sucks :D
I did not use them at all, but for example, my friend is very happy with Panda for years. There are probably many other happy/unhappy users with any AV.:emoji_thinking:(y)
 

stefanos

Level 24
Verified
I did not use them at all, but for example, my friend is very happy with Panda for years. There are probably many other happy/unhappy users with any AV.:emoji_thinking:(y)
Is two hours i test again Panda dome advanced. I can not believe the persons to pay for this product. Web ptotection olmost zero . Phishing protection zero. Detection rate maybe is better without antivirus. Great delay if you download something. . Delay the aplications. The only good not use many ram and need only 125 mb disk space.
212378


212379