AV Comparatives - Real World Protection: March 2017

[Xsjx]

Interesting Avira again 100%

But Kaspersky avast and avg lower than Windows Defender

Full Report

 

[Deleted member 178]

Read the methodology and you will understand why...obviously you just like picture...

Please, if you post a test , made it properly, with links to the whole test not just an image. thanks.

 

[Xsjx]

Read the methodology and you will understand why...obviously you just like picture...

Please, if you post a test , made it properly, with links to the whole test nit just an image. thanks.

If you think i like this picture you are wrong..

This is just not true...
And yes Avira has 100% but i care 0% about Aviras score..

 

[omidomi]

hmm,diffrent result Eset and Kaspersky lower than Microsoft
Ok ok it seems microsoft increace its economic help to AVC

 

[Deleted member 178]

Please edit you first post , including this link : https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/avc_factsheet2017_03.pdf

 

[Ink]

Can't ignore that Microsoft are working behind the scenes of Windows 10 to help keep their systems secure.

Opinions cannot be trusted, with biased views.

 

[RoboMan]

I voted probably. I rely no testing sites but our testers, whose enviroment is much more similar to our (regular users). Still, it is certain that if somebody gets to know how to protect Windows, is Microsoft. Hopefully they get the lead here

 

[erreale]

Whenever a new test comes out there are various factions (fanboy?) Defending or deride the result. The results almost always depend on the methodology used during the test. I honestly I never swayed from these tests, but I always looked for the best product (for my needs) alone trying various software.

 

[lab34]

Hello,
after reading the interesting other thread ("Here's why i strongly disagree with the latest AV-Test results"), and after beeing myself an avira fan because of those kind of graph, I'm trying to learn the MT lesson : Read the methodology

So, here, I can see interesting things (if I understand well):
- they are evaluating response of AV in front of malicious url
- before, they were evaluating "several tens of thousands malicious URLs", but this time only 329 (but they say they are representatives of everyday life).
- Avira is tested in it's Pro version (not the free one)
- They are "using all their protection features"
- I don't understand if they are using default parameters or not ?

So, a few month ago, I would have said: wow, my Avira free is the best !
Now, I can say that avira "pro" is top against those 329 malicious url, (but others too, like BD, and others).

I hope I've succeeded in my home work

 

[Deleted member 178]

You know many people are "idiots" and can't grasp that improvements can be achieved, especially if a product is average , it is easier to make it better than a top notch product with no more room for any improvement.

Those fanboys that can't believe than Windows Defender can be better than their product, are mostly beginners with few clues about security. All what they know come from what they read from someone else that read someone else article, etc...... they don't even dig in the details.

- "i can go faster with my feet than a plane "
- "impossible, you had to cheat"
- "no, on a 5 meter race , i win"

All is about the details, not the bare result. Especially in those test made by labs. And as i said thousand times, you can't compare results from labs, because you don't know what are those samples and where they come from.
For example, i could select 90% samples originating from China, so all Chinese AVs will score higher than any others.

I don't mind much about test labs, because i know their methodology, they will never achieved anything near "real-world" , all they do is just extrapolation. so i take their result as info but not as real results.
So those fanboys/haters fighting over results just made me laugh by showing their ignorance. Hilarious.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Hmmm... No plain no?
There's too many antivirus that it becomes costly to test them. Sometimes it's better to pick what's good enough through our own heuristics.
@Umbra Isn't that "improvements can be achieved"?... if a product is average (and when the data points aren't all homogenous and has sufficient competition)

 

[Deleted member 178]

Interesting quotes from a AV-C representative (i guess):

The difference is that in the real-world protection test the samples arrive via the web (i.e. malicious URLs), so also URL-blockers etc. come to play there.

Real-World Protection Test March 2017

 

[Deleted member 178]

@Umbra Isn't that "improvements can be achieved"?... if a product is average (and when the data points aren't all homogenous and has sufficient competition)

Lol yes typo ^^ Thanks, i corrected.

 

[SHvFl]

This test is stupid as most tests but if offers a general idea on how bad some products are based on false positives. Nothing more and nothing less.

EDIT: Everyone got a million % again btw. Good job to all they are all the next best thing.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

This test is stupid as most tests but if offers a general idea on how bad some products based on false positives. Nothing more and nothing less.

Maybe they should do instead a false positive test and maybe help AVs in that regard.

 

[SHvFl]

Maybe they should do instead a false positive test and maybe help AVs in that regard.

It's their test. They can do whatever brings them money. They are not doing it from the goodness of their heart. They are earning $£€....

 

[Deleted member 178]

Maybe they should do instead a false positive test and maybe help AVs in that regard.

AV-bulletin does it already; "you have FPs , you fail"

 

[inuyasha]

You know many people are "idiots" and can't grasp that improvements can be achieved, especially if a product is average , it is easier to make it better than a top notch product with no more room for any improvement.

Those fanboys that can't believe than Windows Defender can be better than their product, are mostly beginners with few clues about security. All what they know come from what they read from someone else that read someone else article, etc...... they don't even dig in the details.

- "i can go faster with my feet than a plane "
- "impossible, you had to cheat"
- "no, on a 5 meter race , i win"

All is about the details, not the bare result. Especially in those test made by labs. And as i said thousand times, you can't compare results from labs, because you don't know what are those samples and where they come from.
For example, i could select 90% samples originating from China, so all Chinese AVs will score higher than any others.

I don't mind much about test labs, because i know their methodology, they will never achieved anything near "real-world" , all they do is just extrapolation. so i take their result as info but not as real results.
So those fanboys/haters fighting over results just made me laugh by showing their ignorance. Hilarious.

umbra, i like your style

 

[RejZoR]

Ok, I can now declare that Microsoft Defender is now finally a viable option. They are no longer garbage in dynamic tests and as a surprise, after Creators Update, it's also not garbage slow anymore. Opening my downloads folder filled with tons of files is now done in an instant where before it took like half a minute to list and sort the files by date as it was checking them one by one. So, cheers for that MS. Took them bloody ages to get rid of that nauseatingly slow scan engine...

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

Read the methodology and you will understand why...obviously you just like picture...

Please, if you post a test , made it properly, with links to the whole test not just an image. thanks.

Exactly, I read this whole article, and this post mis-represents the article.
Should not be able to do this here