AV-Comparatives: Real-World Protection Test (August 2016)

[Evjl's Rain]

Test machine: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit SP1
Method: 346 LIVE malicious URLs

 

[ZeroDay]

Thanks for the share.

How does Bitdefender do so well when it fails a LOT in the malware hub and in reviews. It's good to see Emsisoft result very encouraging.

 

[kev216]

How does Bitdefender do so well when it fails a LOT in the malware hub and in reviews. It's good to see Emsisoft result very encouraging.

Because you have to take these kind of tests with a grain of salt. Same with AV-test.
What strikes me is that BD seems to have zero fp's this time, while it is known for that.

 

[DJ Panda]

Pretty shocking results to me! Expected Avast and Windows Defender to do better than they did.. Oh well.. The results seem to fluxuate every time though take them with a grain of salt and if you want test YOURSELF on whether or not the impact and protection is good eneough for you.

 

[kiric96]

we dont know how they test these product nor the quality of the samples (and if they are used in the willd) so it dependents how you want to see this test. As an example here in my country ESET always catch 99% of the malware present here

 

[Terry Ganzi]

I personally think that people take these results the wrong way. I don't take anything with a grain of salt,lump of sugar or dash of seasoning.
I look at it as different people have different samples that get pass anti-virus or get block by some, short story is put no trust in 1 product always have other protection on deck simple.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I personally think that people take these results the wrong way. I don't take anything with a grain of salt,lump of sugar or dash of seasoning.
I look at it as different people have different samples that get pass anti-virus or get block by some, short story is put no trust in 1 product always have other protection on deck simple.

Well put, and I could not agree more.
I myself don't employ sig based software but I would watch for results "over time" their track record so to speak and go from that.
I too don't like the "Grain Of Salt" comments that are added as a back door so one cant be held liable, and that's all that crap statement is for.
I don't eat reviews so screw the salt

 

[Evjl's Rain]

updated:
Test machine: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit SP1
Method: 346 LIVE malicious URLs

because the number of samples is not so high so we might see some unexpected results from popular AVs

 

[Exterminator]

I think the "grain of salt" comment is taken the wrong way.I personally use this term and I will explain why.
The only real world test I go by is on my machines and an AV Comparatives monthly test report is not going to change my mind.
There has been and still are rumors that these test results are biased on the "donation" factor. True or not still doesn't change my mind.
Not one security solution is below 95 % and those with the highest FP scores are probably the ones you would assume to have that many.
Personally I think we have an outstanding Malware Hub with members who use the proper,professional procedures for testing and displaying results.
I would scan the hub before I put my faith in an AV Comparatives test.
Bottom line is these tests are interesting to view and always make for some interesting banter but in the end it is what you feel does the job for you and not what exterminator20 says or Av Comparatives.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I call BS, I always go by what Exterminator says lol
I get your point, but in a community like this you have to admit it's a bit redundant.
Thanks

 

[Exterminator]

I call BS, I always go by what Exterminator says lol
I get your point, but in a community like this you have to admit it's a bit redundant.
Thanks

I agree on the redundancy issue,maybe we should say "in one ear and out the other"

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I agree on the redundancy issue,maybe we should say "in one ear and out the other"

rofl, I give up

 

[rpsgc]

Seeing as they're testing with an ancient OS like Windows 7 (instead of 8/10), why even include Microsoft there?

Might as well test with Windows XP.

 

[Sven]

What I wonder is, why Zemana is not there? Would love to see how it would rock and roll there!

My own reply : Because they don't spend money to be on that list lol.

 

[Rod McCarthy]

Thanks for the share.

How does Bitdefender do so well when it fails a LOT in the malware hub and in reviews. It's good to see Emsisoft result very encouraging.

How so at 60%...lol

 

[Rod McCarthy]

OK I just want to address the "grain of salt" comment...

If I am a company / business part of my survival depends on reputation and word of mouth. So I am not going to want to stage some phony test that can be ridiculed by persons on the net, and thus risk loss of future capital by tests that garner a lack of faith.

Also I have to consider time and money spent, for what reason then would I want to waste either. For what purpose.

Then my samples used, we must ask if my samples give the advantage to one security package and it shines, when it is deemed unworthy, then why does the security package deemed worthy by the viewers not stand up as well to the same sample packs?

In other words an inadequate software against lame samples should then do well, and a good or superior security software should do even better against the same samples....

We must be honest even if our pet software got out performed! BD and Vipre did great... I would not use Chinese security software.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

OK I just want to address the "grain of salt" comment...

If I am a company / business part of my survival depends on reputation and word of mouth. So I am not going to want to stage some phony test that can be ridiculed by persons on the net, and thus risk loss of future capital by tests that garner a lack of faith.

Also I have to consider time and money spent, for what reason then would I want to waste either. For what purpose.

Then my samples used, we must ask if my samples give the advantage to one security package and it shines, when it is deemed unworthy, then why does the security package deemed worthy by the viewers not stand up as well to the same sample packs?

In other words an inadequate software against lame samples should then do well, and a good or superior security software should do even better against the same samples....

We must be honest even if our pet software got out performed! BD and Vipre did great... I would not use Chinese security software.

I agree and the testing is fun, to tell you the truth I trust the video's I see posted here even more that I trust AV Comparitives, we have some very talented
and professional testers within this community and they are not hard to spot if you follow the Video thread.
On the Chinese thing, I would use their software, but there are some I won't touch with a ten foot pole. I think with any country
there are good and bad, what concerns me is when a software company does prove itself to be untrustworthy why ignore that
and continue to patronize them ? There are members here, for example that religiously use and support quiho 360 even after being caught
letting ad's and other malware through for money, their business practices have been found to be very shady.
To me that seems very foolhardy to put it politely. But hey, to each his or her own I guess.
cool reply Rod

 

[rebel4life]

it would be great if they tested more security software out there both paid and free

 

[jackuars]

I think with any country
there are good and bad, what concerns me is when a software company does prove itself to be untrustworthy why ignore that
and continue to patronize them ? There are members here, for example that religiously use and support quiho 360 even after being caught
letting ad's and other malware through for money, their business practices have been found to be very shady.
To me that seems very foolhardy to put it politely. But hey, to each his or her own I guess.
cool reply Rod

Myself haven't been affected by any kind of malware that "they" said were being allowed by Qihoo. I'm glad that unlike other freeware software's Qihoo didn't start bundling extra offers during product install, making them the perfect alternative for newbies. If ads help them to generate revenue, why not? They aren't the only ones to do it.

When popularity of a particular software touches the roof or even goes beyond it, other companies start plotting tactics to create a bad name to them. "Trustworthy" is a subjective word. The commercials that you see on TV are just ads to lure people not showing the actual effects of a product but promoted by models and actors to impress viewers. We know how Google got bashed for their privacy policies. But do people continue to use it? Yes. Same goes for Facebook, Whatsapp and other slew of websites or software's.

In the end what matters to the users is the positives that they receive from something rather than the negatives they have to endure. You can't get a ripped body without breaking a sweat.

 

[Rod McCarthy]

I agree and the testing is fun, to tell you the truth I trust the video's I see posted here even more that I trust AV Comparitives, we have some very talented
and professional testers within this community and they are not hard to spot if you follow the Video thread.
On the Chinese thing, I would use their software, but there are some I won't touch with a ten foot pole. I think with any country
there are good and bad, what concerns me is when a software company does prove itself to be untrustworthy why ignore that
and continue to patronize them ? There are members here, for example that religiously use and support quiho 360 even after being caught
letting ad's and other malware through for money, their business practices have been found to be very shady.
To me that seems very foolhardy to put it politely. But hey, to each his or her own I guess.
cool reply Rod

So True...Thanks.