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

Petrovic

Level 64
Thread author
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Well-known
Apr 25, 2013
5,354
Ashampoo_Snap_2015.12.16_19h28m09s_018_.jpg
Ashampoo_Snap_2015.12.16_19h29m30s_019_.jpg

2015-12-16_1834.png

2015-12-16_1833.png
 

FleischmannTV

Level 7
Verified
Honorary Member
Well-known
Jun 12, 2014
314
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.
 

Tani

Level 9
Verified
Nov 25, 2014
402
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

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Mar 15, 2011
13,070
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Av Gurus and Rishi

Kuttz

Level 13
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
May 9, 2015
625
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LabZero and Rishi

Kuttz

Level 13
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
May 9, 2015
625
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

Level 12
Verified
Well-known
Feb 10, 2012
585
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

Level 18
Verified
Jan 31, 2014
888
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

Level 27
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jul 2, 2014
1,688
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.
 
Last edited:

Solarquest

Moderator
Verified
Staff Member
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Jul 22, 2014
2,525
What surprised me the most is Bitdefender detecting all but 1 and Emsi missing 6!
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top