I'm actually surprised by BitDefender's result [in a good way, though]- I know they've been a juggernaut for the last 12 months and I've been using it for quite some time now, just that I have always been skeptical of their high AV-Test removal marks.
Kudos to Kaspersky and Panda, the rest of the BitDefender engine club [BullGuard, F-Secure] wasn't too bad either, G-DATA's focus is obviously on detection. Avira's result is once again a sign of their intrinsic abilities, regardless of questionable business alliances and choices, as well as development rate.
This test, whether we deem it important and representative, or not, should at least remind us that prevention is the best cure. It's a snapshot of the capabilities of these products to deal with an already infected system.
Edit: and the good thing is that
AV-Comparatives said:
most vendors have addressed and fixed/improved the next releases of their products based on our findings in this report
If the current heavyweights BitDefender and Kaspersky can "only" manage 94 / 100 with this sample of non-destructive, wide-spread trojans / trojan horses, worms, etc., and as stated
AV-Comparatives said:
We allowed some negligible/unimportant traces to be left behind, mainly because a perfect score can't be reached due to the behaviour / system modifications done by some of the used malware samples
the infected system will remain more or less in some sort of compromised state. And high detection doesn't necessarily equate to good removal abilities.
The report can be viewed as an informational piece on implementing layered approach to security - backup and disk imaging, sandboxing and virtualization, system snapshot and rollback software should be used to complement and strengthen AV/AM products most of the PC users still see as the mainstay of their security.
@Nikos
avast did really well in MRG Effitas Banking Security report, alongside Comodo, Emsisoft and Kaspersky.