AV-Comparatives: File Detection Test - September 2016

[Terry Ganzi]

AV-Comparatives: File Detection Test - September 2016

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart1&year=2016&month=9&sort=1&zoom=2

https://www.av-comparatives.org/detection-test/
False Alarm
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart6&year=2016&month=9&sort=1

 

[hjlbx]

The difference in detection between Microsoft and the ones with the highest detection rates is only 0.9 %...

 

[yigido]

Another useless, time consuming test..Why?

The difference in detection between Microsoft and the ones with the highest detection rates is only 0.9 %...

 

[SHvFl]

The difference in detection between Microsoft and the ones with the highest detection rates is only 0.9 %...

They probably use samples that are older than me. What do you expect. It's a useless test if you ask me.

 

[hjlbx]

All this does is perpetuate the scam... "In AV we trust..."

 

[yigido]

All this does is perpetuate the scam... "In AV we trust..."

Maybe you knew these..
https://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av...-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/
https://www.melih.com/2011/12/07/co...omparatives-org-for-test-auditing-validation/

 

[yigido]

Source is above, Melih's words about AV-Comparatives

Here is my opinion about The issues with AV-Comparatives.org and why they try hard to “censor” anyone who reveals this:

1) There are sizeable amounts of payments being paid by Anti Virus companies to AV-Comparatives.org (AV-Comparatives.org should reveal how much money they get from each vendor so that end users can take this financial transaction into account when reading their reports, they claim to be a “not for profit” organization, so they should be open about it)

2) The information provided is misleading: What is being tested is what the AntiVirus can detect and NOT what it can “Protect” you from!

3) Samples are shared amongst the “participants”

and this one really what everyone suspects..

We have always put our money where our mouth is and provided top notch security for our end users for free! We relied on the strength of our product and our end users to spread the word about Comodo. AV-comparatives.org is a disservice to end users because they try very hard to cover the fact that they get big $$ from antivirus vendors and provide misleading information about the role of “detection” in overall desktop protection.

and I really shocked after the mail of AV-Comp. employee..total fail!

 

[ZeroTolerance]

Maybe you knew these..
https://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av...-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/
https://www.melih.com/2011/12/07/co...omparatives-org-for-test-auditing-validation/

Hmm, This is intriguing. AV-comparatives.org making a business here. Well, who will pay there bills if they dont make a profits.

 

[jamescv7]

The samples seems already been notified by AV industries thus majority are 99.9% on the test.

But technically not a good reference to decide which product are better, since the logic of typical users will flow based on results shown.

 

[Entreri]

BitDefender really does well on detection. I seen tests where it has a 100% detection rate against new malware samples numbering in the 1000's. The top ones tend to be Kaspersky, BitDefender and Avira even among casual testers from I seen.

 

[ForgottenSeer 55474]

Bitdefender is the best,i mean also easy to work with(nice interface)

 

[Ana_Filiz]

These tests smells like a $$$.

 

[Solarquest]

I trust what I see..so prefer our Hub tests than these av-test+av-comparatives...99%+detection?...sure...