- Apr 15, 2019
- 104
AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test Jul-Oct 2023
- Thread starter Spartan
- Start date
- Apr 21, 2016
- 3,460
Thank you for sharing the article and chart! The AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test for July-October 2023 is an important resource for evaluating the performance of different security software. It provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of various antivirus solutions in real-world scenarios.
Eset didnt surprise me. I remember eset from sality days. Sality would make party on the system and eset was useless. Tried eset a year ago and missed so many malware. I dont know why people pay this program tons of money. Besides its extremely expensive compared to others(at least for my country).
Its behaviour blocker is non-existent. If i want good signatures and good behaviour blocker, i would either choose Bitdefender or Kaspersky.
Avast and avira are just scareware and nag you all the time.
Its behaviour blocker is non-existent. If i want good signatures and good behaviour blocker, i would either choose Bitdefender or Kaspersky.
Avast and avira are just scareware and nag you all the time.
- Jan 6, 2022
- 435
- Jun 6, 2017
- 476
AV products will give different results every time they are tested. For example, Microsoft may be best one month while Kaspersky may be best another month. You cant gain much knowledge from a single set of results.
For this reason, I think its a good idea to see how a product has scored over the last 2 years and also compare the results of different testing laboratories. That way you can get a better idea of which products are consistently good and which are consistently bad.
Unfortunately I don't think there is a single place where all this information is summarised.
For this reason, I think its a good idea to see how a product has scored over the last 2 years and also compare the results of different testing laboratories. That way you can get a better idea of which products are consistently good and which are consistently bad.
Unfortunately I don't think there is a single place where all this information is summarised.
- May 29, 2018
- 2,607
Its okay to count false positives in these tests but protection is the main thing. In home environments false positives hardly exists, i can bet that avast bb causes more problems in home environments than it competors.
I can remember times back in 2010 when my friends were using f-secure as main antivirus and it basically flagged everything as false positive like daily it happened, f-secure has since matured alot
Trend micro can be very aggressive and even more aggressive when hypersensitive is on & high filter on webfilter ( you can harden it even further)
Sad to see eset getting only 1 star but its still excellent product
I can remember times back in 2010 when my friends were using f-secure as main antivirus and it basically flagged everything as false positive like daily it happened, f-secure has since matured alot
Trend micro can be very aggressive and even more aggressive when hypersensitive is on & high filter on webfilter ( you can harden it even further)
Sad to see eset getting only 1 star but its still excellent product
- Dec 23, 2014
- 8,143
You can look here:
The best Home AV protection 2021-2022
Real-World tests include fresh web-originated samples. Malware Protection tests include older samples (several days old) usually delivered via USB drives or network drives. Real-World Triathlon 2021-2022: SE Labs, AV-Comparatives, AV-Test (7548 samples in 24 tests) -------------------Missed...
malwaretips.com
The best Home AV protection 2019-2020
Real-World tests include fresh web-originated samples. Malware Protection tests include older samples (several days old) usually delivered via USB drives or network drives. Real-World 2019-2020: SE Labs, AV-Comparatives, AV-Test (7659 samples in 24 tests) -------------------Missed samples...
malwaretips.com
Last edited:
Unfortunately, no Eset on those summaries.The best Home AV protection 2021-2022
Real-World tests include fresh web-originated samples. Malware Protection tests include older samples (several days old) usually delivered via USB drives or network drives. Real-World Triathlon 2021-2022: SE Labs, AV-Comparatives, AV-Test (7548 samples in 24 tests) -------------------Missed...The best Home AV protection 2019-2020
Real-World tests include fresh web-originated samples. Malware Protection tests include older samples (several days old) usually delivered via USB drives or network drives. Real-World 2019-2020: SE Labs, AV-Comparatives, AV-Test (7659 samples in 24 tests) -------------------Missed samples...
- Apr 15, 2019
- 104
I'll take lightness in terms of system impact any day of the week over an AV which gets 100% results in these tests so ESET it is for me.
It seems quite strange to me that Eset has come last of all the antiviruses, perhaps there are hidden interests in these tests. I think that perhaps Eset is not the best but coming last seems surreal to me.
I love Eset
I love Eset
- Aug 17, 2013
- 1,905
- Dec 23, 2014
- 8,143
Yes. Eset did not participate in many tests.
Eset had a bad day. Although they should really improve their 0-day capabilities.
- Mar 2, 2023
- 794
At least F-Secure "only" had 18 FPs this time and was beat out by Trend Micro's 35. As with many here, we've never had an issue with
From the Chart drop-down pick Feb-March, then Feb-May. There are many that score 100% blocked but the FP's bring them down a bit. Avast is pretty impressive and seems to be more consistently in the top tier.
malwaretips.com
From the Chart drop-down pick Feb-March, then Feb-May. There are many that score 100% blocked but the FP's bring them down a bit. Avast is pretty impressive and seems to be more consistently in the top tier.
App Review - Avast One Free Antivirus 2023
Avast is the most well-known antivirus company in the world among Windows users. Bought by Norton in 2022, Avast has released a version called One which gathers all the security functions: Antivirus, Firewall, VPN etc. Let's see if Avast is still in shape! Interface: 9/10 Avast's interface is...
malwaretips.com
- May 9, 2019
- 314
Are they using the default settings or are playing with the settings under advanced settings ,protections,detection responses.It seems quite strange to me that Eset has come last of all the antiviruses, perhaps there are hidden interests in these tests. I think that perhaps Eset is not the best but coming last seems surreal to me.
I love Eset
The detection responses need to be all put on which they are not by default it makes a big difference.
Anyone else test this out?
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,094
"bad" seems very relative by missing 1.8% or 9 of 513 IIRC with 0 false positives, while ALL of AV that did better also had very-bad false positives. Seems like there could be / is a strong negative correlation between compromised vs false positives, but don't know if this is causation evidence
Is that discussed by AV-C? I guess AV-C acknowledges some interaction as it does / can otherwise lower their AV rating depending on false positives. @Andy Ful any thoughts about this... Meanwhile ESET has 100% at AVLabs.pl
...
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,635
I think above 98% is really the accurate average result of ESET. For simply protection alone, I think other tier 1 products like Kaspersky, Bitdefender would be a better choice in most cases. In AVC's real-world tests, ESET can not even get better result than the default Microsoft Defender in most occasions.
But ESET is very light and usually annoyance free, with no nags or popups. I think that's why many users use it. But I have to say that some of the recent additions in ESET have been questionable and IMO made the ESET experience much worse than before.
But ESET is very light and usually annoyance free, with no nags or popups. I think that's why many users use it. But I have to say that some of the recent additions in ESET have been questionable and IMO made the ESET experience much worse than before.
The products were tested in default settings and no, you don't need to change any ESET's settings. There are sensitivity settings in advance settings, but those are set to values that ESET thinks are appropriate for their products that would result in less false positives and better performance. ESET wouldn't put their product into tests if they didn't think the default settings weren't enough.
Similar threads
