AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection report (September '17)

I think we all need this after seeing these results...
_95307374_gettyimages-516450576.jpg
:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted Member 3a5v73x, In2an3_PpG, uninfected1 and 12 others
As per usual keep in mind these results are only indicative of the exact samples used.

Viking said:
Never herd of CrowdStrike !
Click to expand...
"Next-gen" AV. No clue why it's included in the real-world tests as they only sell to enterprise clients.

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. :)
Click to expand...
Same. They continue to respect my privacy and I'll continue to give them my money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: simmerskool, Deleted Member 3a5v73x, uninfected1 and 6 others
insanity said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonibalas, Deleted Member 3a5v73x, uninfected1 and 7 others
Sher said:
It's extremely shocking for me to see Microsoft outperforming Emsisoft. Wow! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
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. :)

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:
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted Member 3a5v73x, uninfected1, Venustus and 10 others
kev216 said:
I think we all need this after seeing these results...
_95307374_gettyimages-516450576.jpg
:p
Click to expand...

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 :D 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonibalas, Deleted Member 3a5v73x, uninfected1 and 11 others
low L!fe said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonibalas, Deleted Member 3a5v73x, uninfected1 and 10 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...