Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
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.
View attachment 212378

View attachment 212379
Please, consider that your criteria for good AV are not shared by all people. Believe me. Testing something for two hours, two days, or even two months is not convincing. You do not need anti-phishing and web protecting modules in AV, there are some other very good solutions. Detection rate is not important, because only the protection rate does matter (cloud dependent), except when you work offline. Personally, I do not think that Panda is the best AV for home users, but I cannot see the proof that it is below the average. Furthermore, the difference between the average and the best is very small.
Be safe.:giggle:
 

stefanos

Level 24
Verified
Please, consider that your criteria for good AV are not shared by all people. Believe me. Testing something for two hours, two days, or even two months is not convincing. You do not need anti-phishing and web protecting modules in AV, there are some other very good solutions. Detection rate is not important, because only the protection rate does matter (cloud dependent), except when you work offline. Personally, I do not think that Panda is the best AV for home users, but I cannot see the proof that it is below the average. Furthermore, the difference between the average and the best is very small.
Be safe.:giggle:
I test it online because is cloud antivirus. And every time my opinions is for persons without experience. The some other very good solutions for web and anti-phishing protection is for persons with experience. Persons like you with experience maybe not need antivirus. But for the most home users is important. And one person who gives money for protection should not look for other good solutions to be safe. Thats my poor opinion for all payed prodacts. :giggle:
 

mlnevese

Level 16
Verified
I noticed something strange. We all take for granted that the protection measured by AV testing Labs is the real protection. So, why everybody does not use Avira.:emoji_thinking:

If everybody took the lab tests seriously the only Avs out there would be Bitdefender (the absolute best in the world) followed by Norton with Kaspersky at third place... the other vendors would probably have gone out of business...
 

Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
I test it online because is cloud antivirus. And every time my opinions is for persons without experience. The some other very good solutions for web and anti-phishing protection is for persons with experience. Persons like you with experience maybe not need antivirus. But for the most home users is important. And one person who gives money for protection should not look for other good solutions to be safe. Thats my poor opinion for all payed prodacts. :giggle:
You probably misunderstood my words. By saying that there are other solutions for web and anti-phishing protection, I had in mind that those solutions can be used by average users alongside any AV.
You forgot that if a user can install the AV then he/she usually can also install the web extension. If not, then most users will stick with WD + Edge (the test was performed on Windows 10). Furthermore, many average users do not install the AV - they ask more knowledgeable users to do it.
There is nothing wrong with liking AV with web protection module, but there are some more solutions which can be used by average users. Ask yourself - did your daughter installed the AV, or you did it for her?
 

stefanos

Level 24
Verified
You probably misunderstood my words. By saying that there are other solutions for web and anti-phishing protection, I had in mind that those solutions can be used by average users alongside any AV.
You forgot that if a user can install the AV then he/she usually can also install the web extension. If not, then most users will stick with WD + Edge (the test was performed on Windows 10). Furthermore, many average users do not install the AV - they ask more knowledgeable users to do it.
There is nothing wrong with liking AV with web protection module, but there are some more solutions which can be used by average users. Ask yourself - did your daughter installed the AV, or you did it for her?
The first time my daughter installed the AV . Malwarebytes free :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
person who gives money for protection should not look for other good solutions to be safe.
 

spaceoctopus

Level 15
Verified
Content Creator
These tests are good to get some insight about how some selected products perform. Like many have said there is a lot of interpretations about these testings and also personal experience about different products. Many say Panda is bad, but i've been using their products for almost five years now, and not a single time any of my PCs were infected. Now it is my personal experience, others may be very different.:)
 

Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
I think that many people who discuss the AV test scoring on several forums take for granted some assumptions that are not true:
  1. If antivirus A is better than B, then A can detect all malware as B and some more. In fact, in many cases, B can detect malware before A.
  2. If I would get infected in the year 2018, then probably it would be due to the malware tested by one of the AV testing Labs. In fact, the opposite is much more probable.
  3. The pool of tested samples is a very good representation of malware that could infect the average users. In fact, it is only wishful thinking.
  4. The statistical error, related to choosing a little pool of samples from an unknown large pool of all malware, can be well estimated for AV tests. In fact, it is another wishful thinking. If the statistical error would be 0.1% then the result 99.99% is an illusion, because the real result could lay somewhere between 99.9% and 100%. In this scenario, all AVs tested by AV-Comparatives in February-Mart test should be scored equally.
So what should think the user about tests on malware that with high probability would not infect his/her computer, at all (if infection would happen anyway)?
I would be cautious even when interpreting the AV tests for the year period. They measure something, but there are some other important factors, like the number of computers protected by the AV, cloud response time or advanced anti-malware modules (machine behavioral learning, AI, HIPS, malware detonation in the cloud, big data analysis, application reputation, anti-script modules, etc.).
 
Last edited:

AtlBo

Level 27
Verified
Content Creator
I
I noticed something strange. We all take for granted that the protection measured by AV testing Labs is the real protection. So, why everybody does not use Avira.:emoji_thinking:
Because they can use Comodo :D and simply sandbox block all unsigned from the start lol (and live with the bugs and quirks and the rest :emoji_cold_sweat:). However, imagine if Comodo took signatures as seriously as say Avast or Kaspersky or Bitdefender. I really would like to see more interaction from the Comodo cloud as in with the marginal gray area of clean but unsigned software. And the tests seem to indicate in a way who is taking the fine line most seriously. This is a good thing to see from a-vs that don't have a sandbox to fall back on like Comodo. Also, it's a good reason to take seriously the tests at least as reference. Who is taking the software and usability the most seriously.

Example of unsigned is a program called mb-ruler. This is a very nice tool that puts a protractor on the desktop at the highest level of the screen. It can be used to measure angles and distances on the screen in pixels, inches, mm, etc. It will overlay picture editors, so it's a nice tool. With this type of little known software Comodo is not on the record and there are thousands of similar applications that could be whitelisted on the cloud. Don't know if Comodo whitelists some Nir Sofer apps, but perhaps isolated Nir Sofer apps like FullEventLogView could be evaluated and judged safe and whitelisted. I know it is auto-sandboxed normally even though it is signed (possibly by the dev himself idk). Again, these tests feed pressure into this area of software evaluation-:devil: This improves usability.

It's not malware signature detection what I am discussing (classically I suppose "reduction of FPs), but I would like to see Comodo specifically moreso known for taking marginal applications more seriously for evaluation. It's a perception I have I guess that Comodo doesn't do as much as they could from the cloud to whitelist. Also, user should know when the cloud is referenced, but that's probably a separate ticket with the Comodo forum (by 2025 maybe there will be a reply). Yet, I am imagining an alert explaining the whitelisting and then giving the user the option to sandbox the whitelisted app...

Comodo simply blocks, so it's not even submitted for testing. It's hard to know how seriously they take software evaluation. At any rate, the detection tests do seem to me valuable to see in this one sense, even while running Comodo, because there is healthy pressure placed on a company like Comodo to do better job of allowing unsigned applications that are safe. The fact that this one company doesn't study harder software for the tests and present their work in the tests means the protection could be viewed as inflexible and/or brickish, especially if it seems to be so in real world use. Sadly, this shows with Comodo during usage when compared to say Avast or other a-vs. Again simply a perception on my part. I know what to expect when I install Comodo...just hate having to decide whether to unbox with some unsigned applications, especially without knowing how the other companies handle the software (other than Forticlient). In the end, virustotal is too oftenly the friend here (not to mention perhaps VoodooShield if I could whitelist the script I run from time to time). Otherwise, it's hold the breath and unbox and restart the application without much information, except that Forticlient does/does not block the app.

BTW, signatures do not explain the relationship of possible malware with the internet. I wish this was a greater focus. Comodo gets a thumbs up from me for the presence of the firewall. It's easy to block an app from net contact with Comodo. Test results won't explain something like this, since most of the applications don't firewall as aggresively or thoroughly as Comodo. I do feel this is very important. OK, no false positive, but what does the installed application do that might be somewhat sketchy even if generally safe. Still, the tests help see who is working hard to evaluate software...
 

TairikuOkami

Level 23
Verified
Content Creator
I noticed something strange. We all take for granted that the protection measured by AV testing Labs is the real protection.
People take them too seriously, those score are just like in games or sports, sometimes one team wins, then another one. As long as they are all in the finals, they are all capable. I pick AV based on the very important criteria, the icon. I wrote to Panda, that I would buy and use their AV, if they would include the original cute panda systray icon, not the horrid one. They asked me, which one, I posted it and well, still for waiting for reply. :)
 

Attachments

avast same with kaspersky ? jajajajjajaajjaj this test is a very bad. Avast, AVG and Avira are a ones of the POOR avs in the market, the test is imposible
 
  • Applause
Reactions: Brie

stefanos

Level 24
Verified
  • Haha
Reactions: beavisviruses

grrr

Level 3
Verified
Are these results same for Free version of Bitdefender, Avast, AVG & Kaspersky, or only Paid version?
 

Robbie

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
Why is Avira always at the top, but still nobody hears about it? Are Avira users actually a thing? Is Avira just a creation of our subconsciousness? Or a strategic government move to control us all?

All serious, anybody used it reciently? Does it work? Or is it just signatures?
 
Why is Avira always at the top, but still nobody hears about it? Are Avira users actually a thing? Is Avira just a creation of our subconsciousness? Or a strategic government move to control us all?

All serious, anybody used it reciently? Does it work? Or is it just signatures?
because is a marketing
 
  • Applause
Reactions: Brie

stefanos

Level 24
Verified
Why is Avira always at the top, but still nobody hears about it? Are Avira users actually a thing? Is Avira just a creation of our subconsciousness? Or a strategic government move to control us all?

All serious, anybody used it reciently? Does it work? Or is it just signatures?
I tried the pro version. Is very light. Web protection is poor need the Avira extension. But with extension is top. The protection is signatures, and cloud protection. Have not BB. But have very good detection rate. Is not bad. But It can not be compared with Kaspersky avast
 

TairikuOkami

Level 23
Verified
Content Creator
All serious, anybody used it recently?
Its GUI sucks big time, it looks like something made for Windows XP. Packaging sells, even when talking about software and Avira is stuck.

Why is Avira always at the top, but still nobody hears about it?
Avira tops in all performance tests, but whenever I tried it, it was worse than Defender, once I had to reinstall, since Windows took 10 mins to boot.