AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test August-November 2015

[Petrovic]

Content source

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/avc_prot_2015b_en.pdf

 

[LabZero]

ESET 98.7% and Panda 99,9% it doesn't seem very realistic to me and It would be interesting to see Webroot around here.

 

[Crystal_Lake_Camper]

The same goes for kaspersky and bitdefender : I do not buy those results. But as we all know by heart by now : Money will make your product at av-test.org

 

[Av Gurus]

Windows Defender 94.5% (29 FP?)

 

[FleischmannTV]

Money will make your product at av-test.org

First of all, itt's AV-Comparatives and not AV-Test and secondly: if the results could be bought, then companies like Symantec would be best everywhere, because they have the most of it, Trend Micro would score better than Kaspersky, because they make more than they, and many underdogs wouldn't fare better than the bellwethers of the industry.

I agree that the protection scores look to good to be true, but that goes for all of them and not just some, though it's not because of corruption but because the test labs probably cannot get their hands on the malware faster than the AV companies.

 

[Kate_L]

Only 1606 samples, that's why the results are like this.

 

[silversurfer]

These results are always fake. Money rules the world that is the only truth

 

[Tani]

Well detecting 1605 out of 1606 is pretty too much, may be av-comparatives got bit out dated malware samples, it's not possible with latest malware.

 

[jamescv7]

The test is continuously gone to provide contradictions at all; no wonder that those claimed methodologies are really different in such implementation hence results are also surprisingly.

Example like Microsoft FP rates which known to be zero on other test but suffers bad on AV-Comparatives.
Panda seems nowhere on AV-Test and AV-Comparatives however enthusiast user found out to be mediocre.

Still very mysterious and fishy on those consecutive reports nowadays.

 

[Piteko21]

AV TEST and AV Comparatives are soo funny companies
I don't believe in this tests from this people.
their malware samples are outdated...or ...
AVG better than ESET? come on...

 

[Kuttz]

ESET 98.7% and Panda 99,9% it doesn't seem very realistic to me and It would be interesting to see Webroot around here.

Panda's detection rate is good as long as we are in online. I think NOD32 and Panda had similar detection rate when Internet is available. Its is during offline where the NOD32 zooms past Panda comprehensively.

 

[Kuttz]

Dont blindly depend on any of these results. Its pure non sense in real world use. For example Avira Free do had the 99.9% detection rate and Avast Free had lower. If you are just depended on antivirus software alone then you are more likely to get infected by using Avira Free than Avast Free even though Avira Free had higher detection rate. There are some of my friends who just depended on Avira Free alone without any other security measures got infected easily where such occurrence is rare with Avast Free even though Avira had stronger detection rate. Real world protection is a lot different than what these charts says.

 

[Quassar]

The most funny in AV-comparatives is this malware samples which they use to test they obiant from av producents hahaha...

Its like ask THIEF can i trust you and give money.. and ofc he will say: YES !! You can trust me xD

 

[ifacedown]

Dont blindly depend on any of these results. Its pure non sense in real world use. For example Avira Free do had the 99.9% detection rate and Avast Free had lower. If you are just depended on antivirus software alone then you are more likely to get infected by using Avira Free than Avast Free even though Avira Free had higher detection rate. There are some of my friends who just depended on Avira Free alone without any other security measures got infected easily where such occurrence is rare with Avast Free even though Avira had stronger detection rate. Real world protection is a lot different than what these charts says.

I very much agree with this statement.

In fact, a very careful user without an AV is better protected than a careless user with any choice of AV.

 

[jackuars]

Guys as it has been already mentioned before, the malware samples that they select and ones that others select may not be the same. The results will vary depending on the test configuration, eg: the Operating System used (AV-Test publishes results separately for Win7, 8 and 10), the Malware samples used etc. Hence the results may vary between AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, Dennis Labs, PC World and so on.

Even tests conducted at MalwareTips has the disclaimer below

Rather than judging the results of these independent labs and wondering why your favorite product scored a few points below than the competitors and saying that there's foul-play, it's better to take the wise route and sticking onto your current antivirus, because at the end of the day any antivirus can protect you fairly and none is fool-proof.

 

[Solarquest]

What surprised me the most is Bitdefender detecting all but 1 and Emsi missing 6!