- Nov 15, 2012
- 1,765
Av-Comparatives: Real World Protection(Dec)
- Thread starter MrExplorer
- Start date
- Status
- Apr 17, 2011
- 9,224
I swear Trend must be doing something wrong, or they are actually doing something right. They are (for the past 3) always up the top. Not like I'm complaining, but it's good to see them up there.
Bitdefender did well this time as well, same with F-Secure and G-Data.
With the real-time test, why don't they bring Malwarebytes Pro into it?
Bitdefender did well this time as well, same with F-Secure and G-Data.
With the real-time test, why don't they bring Malwarebytes Pro into it?
- Aug 6, 2012
- 354
LOL looks like i might have to reinstall trend again, i have 3 licenses lying around for a long time without being used!
@ McLovin this is not real time test but rather real world test, which is completely different. this test is to determine how well the product blocks attacks without user intervention in its default settings.
and anyway malwarebytes is not included in any AV-comparatives test because MBAM guys still want us to use an anti-virus with MBAM and not use it standalone.
@ McLovin this is not real time test but rather real world test, which is completely different. this test is to determine how well the product blocks attacks without user intervention in its default settings.
and anyway malwarebytes is not included in any AV-comparatives test because MBAM guys still want us to use an anti-virus with MBAM and not use it standalone.
- Nov 15, 2012
- 1,765
- Nov 15, 2012
- 1,765
- Oct 23, 2012
- 12,527
Bitdefender and Trend Micro did tremendously well,I have always thought both of these were very good softwares.Bitdefender really did a nice job with their 2013 Total protection
A few years back, i had a relative that swore by Trend, said it was his favorite, he wouldn't use anything else, upon research, at the time, Trend was not scoring so well, but it seems they have kicked it up a notch or two, they have been doing really good last few times. I just noticed that McAfee was almost tied even with GFI Vipre.
thewolfsmith72 said:
It is not the lowest in terms of resources, I/O and CPU usage on idle,working and scanning.
You can say it fits in the middle give or take.
No solution has the exact lowest on all 3 sections.
What often happens is that if one or 2 of the 3 are low, the 3rd one is higher and then if you compare to other vendors, no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to get a direct fair comparison.
- Nov 9, 2012
- 363
Its so strange that even after scoring 100/100 or sometimes might be 99.99% as of now many times in a year Bit-defender is still struggling to get the 'AV-Comparatives product of the year' award.
And yes for Malwarebytes 1 can understand y its not on the list. But I feel disappointed to see McAfee there where I think it should have gone now and Emsisoft must be included. Really bored to see the same antivirus vendors compete so many times without not even 1 getting knocked out.
And yes for Malwarebytes 1 can understand y its not on the list. But I feel disappointed to see McAfee there where I think it should have gone now and Emsisoft must be included. Really bored to see the same antivirus vendors compete so many times without not even 1 getting knocked out.
- Dec 17, 2012
- 88
Trend Micro has recently upped their detection, but are their False Positives any less?
acc to the latest false positive test Bitdefender was among the 3rd lowest in FPs whereas Trend Micro was 2nd to none other than Webroot whose FPs were "Crazy Many"
also Bitdefender has Improved their resource usage in the 2013 versions exponentially (considering the 2012 versions were total sacks of rice) whereas Trend Micro has gone from being Light(2011) to Moderately Heavy ( Titanium 2012)
acc to the latest false positive test Bitdefender was among the 3rd lowest in FPs whereas Trend Micro was 2nd to none other than Webroot whose FPs were "Crazy Many"
also Bitdefender has Improved their resource usage in the 2013 versions exponentially (considering the 2012 versions were total sacks of rice) whereas Trend Micro has gone from being Light(2011) to Moderately Heavy ( Titanium 2012)
VectorFool said:other than Webroot whose FPs were "Crazy Many"
i wonder what softwares they used to have so many Fps, i used WSA since win7/Win8 and i encountered only 3 fps...
- Oct 23, 2012
- 12,527
I never take too much away from these reports other than it might make me take a look at something I might not have considered.There are 3 or 4 on this report that probably shouldnt be on this list.Knock on wood I have not had anything on any of my machines for many,many years.I think it is better to gauge their performance for yourself depending on where you go and what you do on your PC.McAfee is much better than it used to be and trend Micro and Bitdefender have always been good performers.I am not surprised that they do well.There is no Norton but there is PC Tools and Tencent-QQ, maybe I live in a cocoon,but I have never even heard of it.Personally I could probably not get past the name to even try it If I knew what it was.Having recently completed the Av comparatives survey I can see how they get some of these on the list,that is if they even look at the surveys.
- Apr 17, 2011
- 9,224
VectorFool said:
See, you and others have said that you have noticed an increase of system memory, with the latest version. I on the other have not. Also depends on how good your system is as to how much it lags your system.
- Status
Similar threads
