AV-Comparatives Performance-Test (AV) October 2012

MalwareVirus said:
And what about microsoft Advanced+ :)
Click to expand...

MSE only has it because of its lack of features that require memory usage. No surprise here, However I think MSE should have scored a little higher than everyone because of that reason. All MSE is is a Standard Anti-Virus with automatic update while Avast, ESET, and Webroot have a lot of features that require memory and CPU usage which is Very Impressive.
 
Excellent result for eset as always,webroot is comlpetely clould based so the result was to be expected.
 
Why doesn't Comodo participate/AV-C include them in these tests? Comodo is a viable competitor.
 
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=comodo+av+comparatives

http://www.av-comparatives.org/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1054

http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/

http://www.melih.com/2011/12/07/comodo-agrees-to-pay-50000-to-av-comparatives-org-for-test-auditing-validation/

BSOD said:
Why doesn't Comodo participate/AV-C include them in these tests? Comodo is a viable competitor.
Click to expand...
 
3link9 said:
Great job Webroot! About time you score the highest in something :D
Click to expand...

I was reading some reviews about Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus 2013 and it sounds very good.

"Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus 2013 is ridiculously small package, under a megabyte. Some independent lab tests aren't compatible with its unique detection method"

"High-level configuration keeps users from drowning in details. Fast install, fast scan. Excellent score in PCMag's malware removal test, very best score in malware blocking test. Includes firewall program control. Identity Shield feature protects browsers and sensitive websites. Many tools for advanced users."

Looks like it based on Av-Comparatives report.I wonder if anyone has given it a try,or someone could post a video test of it.I like the video tests done here as they are un-biased and done very well.Which will hold more weight with me than another review site.I would like to give it a try if it performs well in a MalwareTips test/review.
 
Here's some reviews done here by users:

http://malwaretips.com/Thread-Webroot-SA-AntiVirus-2013-F4z-safegroup-pl?highlight=webroot

http://malwaretips.com/Thread-Webroot-SecureAnywhere-Antivirus-2012-Rollback-Feature-Test-biozfear14?highlight=webroot

http://malwaretips.com/Thread-Webroot-SecureAnywhere-Antivirus-2012-v8-0-1-231-Test-biozfear14?highlight=webroot
 
superboy123 said:
Why norton does not have their test.....????
Click to expand...

Because they don't want to participate in the file detection portion of the test.

Participants 2012 - AV-Comparatives discussions - AV-Comparatives Forum

Symantec Norton have indicated that they do not wish to participate in the File Detection Test. AV-Comparatives, based on feedback from our users, regard this test as still being of fundamental importance in evaluating the overall effectiveness of anti-malware software, second only to the Whole Product “Real World” Protection Test (WPT). A product could score highly in the WPT by e.g. blocking known source URLs for malware code, but fail to protect adequately if the malware is already resident on the target computer or arrives through a different channel (e.g., a USB drive). Consequently, AV-Comparatives require all participating manufacturers to take the File Detection Test. If we did not, the results of the other tests might give a misleading picture as to the overall protection offered by a product.
Click to expand...
 
HeffeD said:
superboy123 said:
Why norton does not have their test.....????
Click to expand...

Because they don't want to participate in the file detection portion of the test.

Participants 2012 - AV-Comparatives discussions - AV-Comparatives Forum

Symantec Norton have indicated that they do not wish to participate in the File Detection Test. AV-Comparatives, based on feedback from our users, regard this test as still being of fundamental importance in evaluating the overall effectiveness of anti-malware software, second only to the Whole Product “Real World” Protection Test (WPT). A product could score highly in the WPT by e.g. blocking known source URLs for malware code, but fail to protect adequately if the malware is already resident on the target computer or arrives through a different channel (e.g., a USB drive). Consequently, AV-Comparatives require all participating manufacturers to take the File Detection Test. If we did not, the results of the other tests might give a misleading picture as to the overall protection offered by a product.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks for information.....do you think why norton does not want test their product????
 
check the latest results in our malware hub.

Norton prevention > detection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...