- Aug 30, 2015
- 1,928
Even though you should take these tests with a grain of salt I am happy with a lot of these products. 
AV Comparatives July 2017
- Thread starter legendcampos
- Start date
exactly lol
when you look at the overall percentage being 95% or better, and statistically scale down the numbers to what average users might actually see in a month or 12 months of using their computer... the difference between "number 1" and "number 10" is quite minuscule and is of little consequence
especially if you layer up your protection with multiple mitigation factors like you should...
unless you sit there downloading samples from malware hub or other places and run them on your own live computer all day long....
exactly lol
when you look at the overall percentage being 95% or better, and statistically scale down the numbers to what average users might actually see in a month or 12 months of using their computer... the difference between "number 1" and "number 10" is quite minuscule and is of little consequence
especially if you layer up your protection with multiple mitigation factors like you should...
unless you sit there downloading samples from malware hub or other places and run them on your own live computer all day long....
Some people have a grasp of statistics\numbers and what those mean for day-to-day usage while others do not. Some understand, but choose to repurpose the numbers for their own agenda.
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,298
AV-Comparatives has an alliance with Innsbruck University, AV-Test with Magdenburg University so I trust they know how to perform statistical correct and valid tests. On top of that AV-Comparatives is ISO, TÜV and EICAR certified, so their processes and tests methodology are checked also. I think it is fair to assume they do a better job than youtube testers
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
In case you noticed the recent diesel scandals, all those cars were TÜV and ISO certified as well and a YouTube tester might actually have done better.AV-Comparatives has an alliance with Innsbruck University, AV-Test with Magdenburg University so I trust they know how to perform statistical correct and valid tests. On top of that AV-Comparatives is ISO, TÜV and EICAR certified, so their processes and tests methodology are checked also. I think it is fair to assume they do a better job than youtube testers
- Jul 2, 2014
- 1,689
I don't know what kind of results and what antivirus suites should come in what place so that it will satisfy the MT members. Do you think that Microsoft is also paying AV-Comparatives, so that it'll be equally good as Kaspersky that simply falls in the 13th place this month?
Monthly results change according to the samples they test and these samples are clearly diverse that at times one suite can fall low/high each month. R.I.P to people who look at these results to change their suites according to the scores shown here every month.
I agree with @Lockdown comment that it's wrong when people simply take a look at these bar graphs and pass judgements.
Monthly results change according to the samples they test and these samples are clearly diverse that at times one suite can fall low/high each month. R.I.P to people who look at these results to change their suites according to the scores shown here every month.
I agree with @Lockdown comment that it's wrong when people simply take a look at these bar graphs and pass judgements.
- Jul 2, 2014
- 1,689
Emsisoft didn't come last per se...It's how the suites have been arranged in the graph. Please refer to my previous comment on not to simply look at these bar graphs to make judgements on the test results.
By default if a suite is Blocking (Green) more malware it is positioned higher than one that is User dependant (Yellow), which is ranked higher than the one that has Compromised (Red) more malware. . If you look closely Emsisoft got close to 100%, it's just that a lot of files are a choice left to the user to be blocked depending on the alert passed by Emsisoft. This also has a downside with a strong behavioural blocker you could also get more false positives.
To be precise, all suites have performed nearly equally well.....
It doesn't matter what antivirus you use, you are nearly going to get the same protection. What matters is how you use it!
Obviously paid versions might have a few more modules than the freeware counterparts that could edge out the latter by 1 or 2%, but you have to decide if that is worth it to buy the product, instead of layering your protection with different free softwares that would give you the exact same protection.
Last edited:
- Jul 13, 2014
- 766
Lets be serious and use our brain guys.Panda is a great product for sure.But Panda Free better than Emsisoft and any other top notch product(Bitdefender,Kaspersky,Eset,Avast and the like)??....lol, come on!
....lol, come on!
Last edited:
- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
"It doesn't matter what antivirus you use, you are nearly going to get the same protection. What matters is how you use it!"
please, you don't believe that either do you.
there is so many things you can configure on a suite, it won't change the world..
Last edited:
- May 11, 2011
- 444
At last, some rationality, here.AV-Comparatives has an alliance with Innsbruck University, AV-Test with Magdenburg University so I trust they know how to perform statistical correct and valid tests. On top of that AV-Comparatives is ISO, TÜV and EICAR certified, so their processes and tests methodology are checked also. I think it is fair to assume they do a better job than youtube testers
According to AV-Comparatives! Not me!
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview
Sort: by Value; not by Vendor!!!
- Isn't Emsisoft in the far-right (= LAST) position of the chart?
- Why did AV-Comparatives place Emsisoft in the respective position?
What IF a User is an Inexperienced one and Allows Everything?
Imagine what will happen...
*Passing the Responsibility to the User* is Not Security; it is Bargain!
While others are running out of Logic...
It has been amusing to read how many Bad Excuses
the Emsisoft "supporters" will make up
to justify Emsisoft's POOR performance.
Maybe, it is AV-Comparatives unreliable and questionable, after all.
Just like it was VB100, here.
Typical FANBOY-ism pattern...
Last edited:
- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
you would have something here if i were a fan or a user of Emsisoft. i'm neither of those, but at least i'm not a sheep who follows AV testing sites like it's the Holy Bible.At last, some rationality, here.
According to AV-Comparatives! Not me!
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview
Sort: by Value; not by Vendor!!!
- Isn't Emsisoft in the far-right (= LAST) position of the chart?
- Why did AV-Comparatives place Emsisoft in the respective position?
What IF a User is an Inexperienced one and Allows Everything?
Imagine what will happen...
*Passing the Responsibility to the User* is Not Security; it is Bargain!
While others are running out of Logic...
It has been amusing to read how many Bad Excuses
the Emsisoft "supporters" will make up
to justify Emsisoft's POOR performance.
Maybe, it is AV-Comparatives unreliable and questionable, after all.
Just like it was VB100, here.
Typical FANBOY-ism pattern...
you're grasping for something to make sense while using lowkey passive-aggresive insults, i bet you're one of those guys who pull out the "i have an IQ of 150" card in every argument they can't win.
- Jul 2, 2014
- 1,689
Since AV-Comparatives test is done at default settings, my comment referred to antivirus suites at default , which is how most people use these software's [a sad but true fact].
- Jul 13, 2014
- 766
@212eta
What are you trying to prove?that you are more intelligent than the rest with your technical calculations
When people tell you that these results should be taken with a grain of salt and is open to interpretations,they are no fool.
And guess what...even AV Comparatives knows that, highlighted with some interesting notes,which obviously you've been missing
''We would like to point out that while some products may sometimes be able to reach 100% protection
rates in a test, it does not mean that these products will always protect against all threats on the
web. It just means that they were able to block 100% of the widespread malicious samples used in a test''
You are the one overgeneralising on some stuff here and being childish.You're the fool
What are you trying to prove?that you are more intelligent than the rest with your technical calculations
When people tell you that these results should be taken with a grain of salt and is open to interpretations,they are no fool.
And guess what...even AV Comparatives knows that, highlighted with some interesting notes,which obviously you've been missing
''We would like to point out that while some products may sometimes be able to reach 100% protection
rates in a test, it does not mean that these products will always protect against all threats on the
web. It just means that they were able to block 100% of the widespread malicious samples used in a test''
You are the one overgeneralising on some stuff here and being childish.You're the fool
Last edited:
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,298
Now they just need to release a video to show users how the testing is doneAV-Comparatives has an alliance with Innsbruck University, AV-Test with Magdenburg University so I trust they know how to perform statistical correct and valid tests. On top of that AV-Comparatives is ISO, TÜV and EICAR certified, so their processes and tests methodology are checked also. I think it is fair to assume they do a better job than youtube testers
- Feb 24, 2017
- 1,661
it's okay mate, there is a reason churches are full every Sunday.So you decided to give a masterclass in passive-aggresive responses
Baling out
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
I think he's trying to prove that the ignore list is there for a reason. It's nice and quiet on my end.
lol look at my user profile to the left of my post. notice how it says i'm using bitdefender, not emsisoft. So I am a "fanboy" of emsisoft, but use bitdefender myself??At last, some rationality, here.
According to AV-Comparatives! Not me!
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview
Sort: by Value; not by Vendor!!!
- Isn't Emsisoft in the far-right (= LAST) position of the chart?
- Why did AV-Comparatives place Emsisoft in the respective position?
What IF a User is an Inexperienced one and Allows Everything?
Imagine what will happen...
*Passing the Responsibility to the User* is Not Security; it is Bargain!
While others are running out of Logic...
It has been amusing to read how many Bad Excuses
the Emsisoft "supporters" will make up
to justify Emsisoft's POOR performance.
Maybe, it is AV-Comparatives unreliable and questionable, after all.
Just like it was VB100, here.
Typical FANBOY-ism pattern...
Hear that sound? that is the sound of your flawed logic falling apart Your Points 1 & 2: AVC "places" emsisoft in LAST position, but SHOULD IT? Nope...
I simply chose emsisoft as an example for my previous posts since many others are also talking about emsisoft ALONG with yourself.
I could have just as easily picked Seqrite who is shown to be in the position of 3rd from the "bottom" even though that graph you posted shows their overall protection (green + half of yellow) to be higher than Adaware program. So seqrite should be ranked BEFORE Adaware, but AVC still puts them behind Adaware in this specific graph. WHY?? Their OWN GUIDELINES state that when they calculate the OVERALL protection of a software to report, they ADD TOGETHER (green + 50% of yellow). That would mean the OVERALL protection for July 2017 of Emsisoft SHOULD be IN FRONT over fortinet for july 2017 because: (emsisoft green + 0.5*yellow) is GREATER THAN (fortinet green). Does the graph properly represent this? Clearly not since your own posts and interpretation of the graph says emsisoft is in last place . It should be FORTINET in last place "according to their own methods". Why is it not? (this question is rhetorical and for the benefit of others who may read this thread in the future to show they should not blindly look at the "ranking" and pass judgement, as myself and many others have alluded to in other posts).
A clear example of fanboyism is your posts, not of any AV program, but of the test lab AVC itself. I bet I can find another lab whose results are different from AVC. Then what? lol.
I have pointed out and quoted a paragraph from AVC's own reports, along with another user.
My quote talks about false positives and how one should look at the different clusterings of products over time being equal to one another. ALL AV programs in cluster 1 are deemed to be equal, same with cluster 2, etc, so long as their AVERAGE false positives fall below the industry average OVER TIME. This is AVC's own words from their reports. Yet you choose to say "12 False Positives" like its a bad thing, which misleads the inexperienced users. 12 False positives in July 2017 BUT Feb-June 2017 they only had 27 in total? So its a crappy month for them. Or another month could be a crappy month for Bitdefender FP. Or any other software in any other month. Look at the big picture not just one small corner of the picture... Did you look at the link i posted of the graph of the months Feb-June 2017? Which software has almost 4x as many false positives as the software that follows it? And thats just in that specific time period, which STILL ISN'T LONG ENOUGH to pass judgement with. I am sure it is different in other time periods. What happens when you aggregate the results of MANY time periods? Users SHOULD be looking at the results of a LONGER PERIOD OF TIME if they choose to make a decision based off ONE LABS test results (at least that way they are KINDA ok statistically, since they look at results over a larger sample of TIME...but they are still ONLY looking at ONE LABS test results...which is NOT statistically sound...)
The other guys quote talks about how if a product scored 100% green in this months test cases, that does not mean they will also score 100% in actual real world usage for people. AVC's OWN WORDS. You're continuously posting how emsisoft for example scored in last place this month...did you look at previous months? how about the link i posted about the aggregate results of Feb to June of 2017? Where does emsisoft score there? or other AV products? Any astute user would know to look at a sample that is representative of the population.
Since you spoke of LOGIC AND RATIONALITY and how others AREN'T logically/rationally sound...
What if the user is INEXPERIENCED and ALLOWS everything... that is your argument...
My rebuttal:
What if an INEXPERIENCED user installs Panda or Avast (or whatever else thats in "1st place ranking" in july 2017) but then disables any number of protection option(s) while using the AV software... It is the USERS FAULT in that case... right? They are inexperienced...so if an inexperienced user allows something to run if asked, and that is their mistake BUT COUNTS AGAINST the software in THIS CASE...BUT that user could also install any other AV software and then make the mistake of turning off "application whitelisting" (for example) for whatever reason so SHOULD THAT ALSO count against the software then?? (maybe its easier to run some obscure program that way instead of properly whitelisting the exe, but the user is inexperienced right so its their fault for getting infected because they turned off a protection mechanism.) Just like its their fault for allowing a file to run EVEN THOUGH THE AV SOFTWARE WARNED THEM AGAINST IT....
So then why should emsisoft or microsoft or kaspersky or whatever be "punished" for giving the user the choice of what to do?? If giving the user a choice will result in punishment for the AV software, maybe AVC should also "punish" other companies for giving users THE CHOICE of turning off other protections in place too??...An inexperienced user will make mistakes no matter what the mistake is...could be allowing a file to run when they shouldnt have, could be turning off a protection mechanism because it allows some game from 2005 to run on their PC more easily....could be turning off other protection mechanism because it "doesn't slow down my browsing"...etc etc...
Now let's FLIP THIS AROUND lol. What about the saying "better to be safe than sorry" ??
Maybe an inexperienced user who gets a warning from his AV software to NOT run a particular file will choose to listen to the warning and not open the file??
See how an INEXPERIENCED user could pretty much go either way? Could open the file, could NOT open the file...Could disable things to make life easier, could also not disable things and instead learn how to properly do things...
lol i'm sure by now people can see how this argument is flawed...
Last point I will make:
you mention how maybe AVC is unreliable and questionable in a sarcastic manner....implying that it should be considered reliable and not questionable...
how do you know it isnt unreliable and questionable? Because they have some "seals of approval" that look all official and stuff? lol
Cuz we all know how
Argument from authority:
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see above.)
In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.
I think thats all I will write in this reply and thread.
Astute users will see my point and it may help others to become astute.
Sheep will follow the shepherd no matter what. Buffalo will run from [manufactured] "danger" right off a cliff (head smashed in buffalo jump)
cool I guess I am also able to make use of lowkey passive-aggressive phrases
lollol same thing for myself, i am not a fan nor a current user of emsisoft.
So instead of us being "fanboys" of emsisoft...maybe he is a "fanboy" of AVC ?
omg how dare you speak against almighty AVC and use their own words against someone lol@212eta
What are you trying to prove?that you are more intelligent than the rest with your technical calculations
When people tell you that these results should be taken with a grain of salt and is open to interpretations,they are no fool.
And guest what...even AV Comparatives knows that, highligted with some interesting notes,which obviously you've been missing
''We would like to point out that while some products may sometimes be able to reach 100% protection
rates in a test, it does not mean that these products will always protect against all threats on the
web. It just means that they were able to block 100% of the widespread malicious samples used in a test''
You are the one overgeneralising on some stuff here and being childish.You're the fool
aside:
Anti-virus product caught cheating by independent test agency
oh look, some AV product was found to be cheating in the past by submitting a "special" version of the product to the testing lab, but a different version to the general public...
Revealed: The anti-virus vendor cheating in independent tests
And now we find out its this specific company who is cheating...so lets strip them of all the "awards" and "seals of approval" we have given to them...
AV-TEST certification - trust no more? - Kaspersky Blog | Nota Bene: Eugene Kaspersky's Official Blog
oh lol btw, now that we have become a bigger name and authority in the "testing lab" community, we should lower our testing standards and also change the criteria [silently] so that tests going forward that show certain products getting a "seal of approval" are thought to be at the same level of other products who got that "seal of approval" in the past in much harsher testing conditions... no one will notice
AND guess what, now we can skew results in favor of certain products or against other products by making some parts of the test "optional" too! so a vendor can "opt out" of a test if they think it might make them look bad....(and maybe we will quietly let vendors know in advance of their results if they agree to "sponsor" a test or something lol then we can say they just "opted out" but not disclose if they "opted out" BEFORE or AFTER knowing their test results....lol)
NOTE: The last part in (parentheses) is something i just made up and have no proof at the moment to back it up...just a thought i had that might make sense looking at a past report of a AV company that SPONSORED the test themselves, but then the test was ran with "competitive products" ...which some were BETA products of the competition...lol
Similar threads
