AV-Comparatives June Test

[Zerion]

So the 2016 Real World June test is here, What do you think of the results? Suprised by anything? Feel free to discuss!

 

[NullByte]

What's with all the False Positives :O

I tested F-Secure a few days ago and I can confirm it has lots of False Positives.

 

[Noxx]

Pretty much what I expected, apart from all the FP by Emsisoft.

 

[Zerion]

The most common ones here is doing good, Bitdefender & Kaspersky solid.

Avira & ESET is fine.

And Emsisoft top 3 with some FP and user dependent.

 

[Jrs30]

Amazing how Bitdefender always do well on these tests.

 

[Logethica]

As @NullByte pointed out,there are a ridiculous amount of false-positives this time...
Personally I would rule-out F-Secure,Trend Micro,eScan,and Bullguard for that reason...
Regarding Emsisoft...Pretty high level of FP,s and User Dependent protection suggests that Emsisoft may not be a wise AV choice for Novice users..
Interesting to see Avira continue to perform well.

 

[NullByte]

Personally, I don't count "User Dependent" because most people don't know what to allow or what to block (or if there is some type of malware inside a safe file/installer ... see most PUPs infections), the False Positives are way to high, it's ridiculous.

 

[Noxx]

Personally, I don't count "User Dependent" because most people don't know what to allow or what to block (or if there is some type of malware inside a safe file/installer ... see most PUPs infections), the False Positives are way to high, it's ridiculous.

it's good for disclaimer purposes, but I completely agree, it shouldn't be looked upon as a con.

 

[Zerion]

Well, that's true about the FP & User Dependent, but for me i don't mind some FP's ( under like 10 ) Even that i have to interact, but as you guys said for a novice there might be some better alternatives ex Kaspersky, Bitdefender, etc.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

@Zerion
Awesome share, also note worthy is the RTTL Certification Test
Only 3 failed Certification (Listed Below)
1> Nano Antivirus Pro
2> TGsoft VirIT eXplorer Lite
3> Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus <--
Very surprised Webroot failed certification, well slightly surprised to be honest.

Source:
AMTSO Real Time Threat List (RTTL) based certification test


Certification Test - AV-Comparatives

 

[Rod McCarthy]

WOW! Vipre did as good as Eset, and Avira.... AVG did good also...But you don't hear much said about Vipre, yet it did very good.

 

[tonibalas]

@_CyberGhosT_ thanks for the information.
I have just one question.
Why a vendor needs more than 98% protection rate to get certified? 97% isn't good?
I don't get it.

 

[Rod McCarthy]

on sale here for one year Vipre Internet Security 1PC | Very Cheap Software

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I

@_CyberGhosT_ thanks for the information.
I have just one question.
Why a vendor needs more than 98% protection rate to get certified? 97% isn't good?
I don't get it.

Thats the "standard" AV-Comparitives has in place for this type of testing.
It does seem kind of strict, but it is to protect the consumer so it fits.
PeAcE

 

[Noxx]

@Zerion
Awesome share, also note worthy is the RTTL Certification Test
Only 3 failed Certification (Listed Below)
1> Nano Antivirus Pro
2> TGsoft VirIT eXplorer Lite
3> Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus <--
Very surprised Webroot failed certification, well slightly surprised to be honest.

Source:
AMTSO Real Time Threat List (RTTL) based certification test

Certification Test - AV-Comparatives

Not that I really care what they think, but it's funny how PCMAG named them one of the top AV's last month, and they don't even make it onto AV comparatives with the likes of Windows Defender, lol. Webroot deserves some flack, but it really is nice considering how tiny it is.

@Rod McCarthy - yes, VIPRE has very silently come back from the dead. Some argue that it's simply because of BD signatures, but they have a really nice HIPS/IDS.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Emsisoft FPs are from Emsi or Bd engine?

Emsisoft simply uses Bd signs or filters Bd signs like for FPs, etc & then adds to Emsisoft products?

Emsisoft solves FPs by Bd for Emsisoft products or FPs by Bd needs to be solved by Bitdefender?

 

[NullByte]

From both engines.

 

[tonibalas]

Thats the "standard" AV-Comparitives has in place for this type of testing.
It does seem kind of strict, but it is to protect the consumer so it fits.
PeAcE

I understand that they have to be strict but in my opinion 95%-96% is a good score.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

@tonibalas
I agree, but you have to admit though with that approach it forces the vendor to really work on the real-time engines
and in doing that, it serves to better protect the consumer. It does make certification a challenge, but in the end if it affords better protection I am not going to complain.
Thanks Toni always a pleasure

 

[Rod McCarthy]

Now don't get upset, this is just a question...

How many of these antivirus vendors would be considered "good" or even fair if it wasn't for them using "for example" the Bitdender engine...

Lets take a popular one here "Emsisoft" would it be really that good without the Bitdefender support...

Then at the other end of the spectrum, we have Webroot, which gets slammed alot, but claims to do well all by itself or one its own..