- Dec 27, 2016
- 1,480
Last edited:
AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection report (September '17)
- Thread starter Parsh
- Start date
So many companies perform worse than MS. Is Panda that good?
- Mar 17, 2014
- 575
It's extremely shocking for me to see Microsoft outperforming Emsisoft. Wow!
- Oct 2, 2011
- 1,534
Never heard of CrowdStrike !
Last edited:
- Nov 15, 2016
- 867
Take these results with a grain of salt. Do your own testing or follow the AV Testers we have here.
Then I need to say that you didn't saw yet my Defender tests. I know that I'm testing with Hard_Configurator but Defender does a big part too!It's extremely shocking for me to see Microsoft outperforming Emsisoft. Wow!
Wow, since when have Microsoft and Panda become so good?
Also, I wonder when will F-Secure fix their horrific false positive rates.
(Assuming those tests were representative of real life scenario, which I highly doubt.)
Also, I wonder when will F-Secure fix their horrific false positive rates.
(Assuming those tests were representative of real life scenario, which I highly doubt.)
- Aug 6, 2014
- 1,044
I think we all need this after seeing these results...
As per usual keep in mind these results are only indicative of the exact samples used.
"Next-gen" AV. No clue why it's included in the real-world tests as they only sell to enterprise clients.
Same. They continue to respect my privacy and I'll continue to give them my money.Well I don't care what Real-World Protection Test - AV-Comparatives says i am sticking with Emsisoft | Anti-Malware: Lightweight Malware Protection for the Home for the time being. More than happy with it.
Last edited:
- Jun 9, 2013
- 6,720
Well I don't care what Real-World Protection Test - AV-Comparatives says i am sticking with Emsisoft | Anti-Malware: Lightweight Malware Protection for the Home for the time being. More than happy with it.
- Sep 14, 2014
- 1,026
I can safely say most FPs originate from DeepGuard - Rare application.
If program X is not in whitelist and releases new version, it's gonna be blocked in many cases. Today I sent (after testing) ~5 FP reports (all "Rare applications" by F-Secure). Of course it's easy to allow them, but they sure need to work on whitelist.
- Oct 11, 2014
- 317
Look at False positive
ESET and McAfee are wins
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/avc_mpt_201709_en.pdf
Norton is Very High False Positive
ESET and McAfee are wins
https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/avc_mpt_201709_en.pdf
Norton is Very High False Positive
- Mar 17, 2014
- 575
Well I don't care what Real-World Protection Test - AV-Comparatives says i am sticking with Emsisoft | Anti-Malware: Lightweight Malware Protection for the Home for the time being. More than happy with it.
Me too!
Microsoft have been improving with signatures lately but regardless of this test, Emsisoft is superior in terms of the potential for protection when compared to Windows Defender, due to factors such as their Surf Protection and Behavior Blocker modules. I would suspect they are also much more reactive in terms of adding new signature detection's.It's extremely shocking for me to see Microsoft outperforming Emsisoft. Wow!
Edit:
Sorry, I forgot this was a dynamic test and didn't include signatures. Regardless though, in reality the Emsisoft Behavior Blocker has the potential to protect the user a lot more than Windows Defender IMO. It is nice to see Microsoft improving a lot and taking things more seriously though.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Jan 10, 2017
- 1,061
I would like to see the tested samples in our malware-hub.
The result is hard to believe
The result is hard to believe
- Jul 6, 2017
- 271
I think we all need this after seeing these results...
Agreed!
And bear in mind that the worst in this test has the 93,5% rate, while between, for example, Microsoft and Emsisoft, difference is less than 1% so it's hard to make conclusions that some AV has really outperformed the other. When you just look at graph bars and it's vibrant colors
it might seen there are significant differences between those, but when you look at the actual percentage on the left side, you can see that the most of them are pretty close in this test.
- Mar 19, 2016
- 61
- Jun 9, 2013
- 6,720
Details here: http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/avc_fps_201709_en.pdf
Trend Micro had 80 FPs, while Norton had a whopping 274 false alarms! In comparison, Emsisoft had only 6 and Eset made a perfect 0. This is really scary. I know we should take these tests with a grain of a salt, but honestly I don't know if I can consider these AV solutions after seeing those results.
- Aug 22, 2014
- 286
Similar threads
