AV-Comparatives Performance Test - May 2013
- Thread starter 3link9
- Start date
Anything else wrong besides Kaspersky? Kaspersky also performs well in the latest AV-Test and Passmark tests.
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
All AVs failed to load before malware loaded (on startup) except these - AVG, Bitdefender, eScan, Kingsoft, MSE, Sophos - thus, letting malware run.
- Mar 8, 2013
- 22,627
Have anyone read this
http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/
Just don't beleive these tests...
http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/
Just don't beleive these tests...
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
- Mar 16, 2013
- 582
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
PDF for May 2013
Seems surprisingly when the methodology looks different in dealing performances but again the importance is that will not conflict for our daily tasks.
Seems surprisingly when the methodology looks different in dealing performances but again the importance is that will not conflict for our daily tasks.
- Dec 16, 2012
- 481
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
I have not tried all of the products in this test but the ones that I have don't correspond with my findings.
The results for Kaspersky are very suspicious and so are the results for BitDefender. Both have a lower system impact than MSE??, yeah right.
Kapersky and BitDefender lower system impact than Emsisoft?? not from what I have found.
Fortinet has a lot of processes but is still has much lower impact than Kapersky and BitDefender. FortiClient Lite uses about the same as MSE.
Even more suspicion for Avira which seam to run the lightest on every system that I tried it on.
Most users who tried these products knows this test is not accurate.
I suspect Kaspersky and BitDefender paid they very well for this test.
Thanks.
The results for Kaspersky are very suspicious and so are the results for BitDefender. Both have a lower system impact than MSE??, yeah right.
Kapersky and BitDefender lower system impact than Emsisoft?? not from what I have found.
Fortinet has a lot of processes but is still has much lower impact than Kapersky and BitDefender. FortiClient Lite uses about the same as MSE.
Even more suspicion for Avira which seam to run the lightest on every system that I tried it on.
Most users who tried these products knows this test is not accurate.
I suspect Kaspersky and BitDefender paid they very well for this test.
Thanks.
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
Littlebits said:I have not tried all of the products in this test but the ones that I have don't correspond with my findings.
The results for Kaspersky are very suspicious and so are the results for BitDefender. Both have a lower system impact than MSE??, yeah right.
Kapersky and BitDefender lower system impact than Emsisoft?? not from what I have found.
Fortinet has a lot of processes but is still has much lower impact than Kapersky and BitDefender. FortiClient Lite uses about the same as MSE.
Even more suspicion for Avira which seam to run the lightest on every system that I tried it on.
Most users who tried these products knows this test is not accurate.
I suspect Kaspersky and BitDefender paid they very well for this test.
Thanks.
Passmark has a really good benchmark system and it did review most AV's and personally i add great value to Passmarks findings as they are 9 out of 10 times spot on. Also they benchmark software for some testing labs as a independent contractor. So i got every reason to trust their findings.
So if you want to find out check here
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
The main problem is that benchmark score, memory usage, number of processes and CPU may have nothing to do with system response time when you start a program, Windows Explorer, browsers, Windows boot time, etc.
My best example is ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + Firewall.
Uses a lot of memory compared to other security suites but doesn't slow down system response time as much as others like Avast, Avira, AVG, BitDefender, Kaspersky, etc.
Some users will only go by how much memory it uses and say it is heavy when it is actually very lite. If you have at least 1GB of RAM installed on your system, the memory usage is not important. What is important does it make your system run slow. Many security products may be lite on memory and CPU but still kill your system response time like Kaspersky, BitDefender and Comodo.
Therefore I believe benchmark tests do not tell you the truth about how a product will run on your system. They should test I/O reads if they want to do an accurate test.
Thanks.
My best example is ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + Firewall.
Uses a lot of memory compared to other security suites but doesn't slow down system response time as much as others like Avast, Avira, AVG, BitDefender, Kaspersky, etc.
Some users will only go by how much memory it uses and say it is heavy when it is actually very lite. If you have at least 1GB of RAM installed on your system, the memory usage is not important. What is important does it make your system run slow. Many security products may be lite on memory and CPU but still kill your system response time like Kaspersky, BitDefender and Comodo.
Therefore I believe benchmark tests do not tell you the truth about how a product will run on your system. They should test I/O reads if they want to do an accurate test.
Thanks.
Kaspersky is the same it uses a lot of ram but there's no impact on the system it's as light as a feather.
Edit: For me Kis feels lighter on my system than avast did, while using avast I'd feel a slow down when launching programmes. To me anyone who says Kis 2013 is heavy on the system clearly hasn't tested it for long enough. I have it running on 3 system and it runs light on them all.
Edit: For me Kis feels lighter on my system than avast did, while using avast I'd feel a slow down when launching programmes. To me anyone who says Kis 2013 is heavy on the system clearly hasn't tested it for long enough. I have it running on 3 system and it runs light on them all.
Similar threads
