AV Comparatives Performance Test Result(June 2012)

[Spirit]

AV Comparatives Performance Test Result(June 2012)


http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/performance-tests


Webroot SecureAnywhere Topped the chart

 

[ZeroDay]

This is only to test the impact on the system of the security suite though nothing to do with detection. Thanks for the share though.

 

[ZeroDay]

Considering Webroot is a cloud suite and a very tiny one at that it wasn't really that far ahead of normal security suits, .1% faster than Avast! for instance.

 

[Brian]

Good job, Avast!.

 

[bogdan]

It looks to me like they find it really hard to measure performance impact, 12 products received the same score with their in-lab tests (AV-C Score: 88) and are only separated by PC Mark Scores. Their test tells me that the difference in performance impact is really small on a PC similar to the one used in their tests: Intel Core i7 920, 4GB RAM, SATAII HDDs. Since these are not the minimum requirements that many suites have, I think it would be much more relevant to also perform tests on a PC with 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM (32-Bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-Bit) or whatever vendors write on their web-sites as min. requirements.

 

[McLovin]

Trend didn't do that bad. Was a bit slow in the file copying at first, but still didn't perform as I thought it would.
As what Webroot did it looks like it topped all the charts. Is Webroot Cloud or signature based?

Another one that did quite well is ESET looked liked worked well through the whole thing.

 

[Littlebits]

It looks to me like they find it really hard to measure performance impact, 12 products received the same score with their in-lab tests (AV-C Score: 88) and are only separated by PC Mark Scores. Their test tells me that the difference in performance impact is really small on a PC similar to the one used in their tests: Intel Core i7 920, 4GB RAM, SATAII HDDs. Since these are not the minimum requirements that many suites have, I think it would be much more relevant to also perform tests on a PC with 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM (32-Bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-Bit) or whatever vendors write on their web-sites as min. requirements.

Completely agree most users can not afford a Intel Core i7 920 system.
So basically the results are useless. Unless you are one of the lucky users that can afford Intel Core i7. I hardly ever get a customer who requests an Intel motherboard system, they just costs too much to build.
I can build a AMD system that will run almost as fast at a fraction of the cost of an Intel based system.

None of my local electronic stores even sale Intel Core i7 systems, you will have to buy one online in my area.

Thanks.

 

[bitbizket]

It looks to me like they find it really hard to measure performance impact, 12 products received the same score with their in-lab tests (AV-C Score: 88) and are only separated by PC Mark Scores. Their test tells me that the difference in performance impact is really small on a PC similar to the one used in their tests: Intel Core i7 920, 4GB RAM, SATAII HDDs. Since these are not the minimum requirements that many suites have, I think it would be much more relevant to also perform tests on a PC with 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB RAM (32-Bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-Bit) or whatever vendors write on their web-sites as min. requirements.

Agreed. Basically this is a basic test, as good as a cross reference. The overall results will be totally difference in a real world performance test. To do this we'll have to be the judge of our own test. Each of our own machine performance are unique so do with our own sets of applications and programs used.

Thanks

 

[bitbizket]

As what Webroot did it looks like it topped all the charts. Is Webroot Cloud or signature based?

It is totally cloud based relying on behaviour anylysis to do most of the prevention (while offline). Webroot analyzes every file that tries to run on a computer in the cloud.

The best features in Webroot is it's includes a rollback feature that restores the system to its previous safe state. Webroot monitors the system and if malicious activity is observed (which means you have to be compromised in the first place), it will automatically take action against it and then clean up the damage it may have caused.

Detection on execution is good but it can fails detecting malicious dormant files where prevention is the weakest link in SA. On the other hand Panda Cloud has the upper hand it consists both cloud and behavior analysis and includes local signature database of the latest malware.

Apart from Panda Cloud, Norton and Avast also do the same things but with additional sets of features.

Thanks

 

[malbky]

If webroots offline and has no net connection it is useless. It wont even detect eicar.

 

[Spirit]

If webroots offline and has no net connection it is useless. It wont even detect eicar.

iT didn't detect eicar even with internet connection
I am serious

 

[bitbizket]

Was this a recent test? WRSA have improved a lot since.

I don't know about Eicar test but what i observed such unknown or new malware samples they failed detect are scan in the cloud which took a while for them to get analyze and detected. Which means the system are already compromised before they can repair. No good in my opinion. That is why i recommended it to be used along with Malwarebytes at least as a companion. However WRSA is good with its maintainance side.

 

[Deleted member 178]

WSA is correct as a companion, but not strong enough as a Main AV.

 

[bitbizket]

WSA is correct as a companion, but not strong enough as a Main AV.

According to them WRSA did block Eicar without a problem. So i'm not sure who's says the right thing. From my own previous test it don't do good with dormant files mostly.

Thanks