Status
Not open for further replies.

NSG001

Level 16
Verified
These tests are always good for a larf :)
Amazed how Bullguard have fallen so much.
 

FreddyFreeloader

Level 31
Verified
Another test where the samples they used did not adjust for their prevalence in the real world. If this was a financial statement, the accountant would be put in jail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phyniks

FlimFlam

New Member
Usually Avira sends only their internet security version to AV-Comparitives..

While Avast sends their free version.[/QU
Usually Avira sends only their internet security version to AV-Comparitives..

While Avast sends their free version.
According to AV Comparatives:
The following products (latest version available at
time of testing) were tested: AhnLab V3 Internet
Security, avast! Free Antivirus, AVG Internet Secur
ity, AVIRA Antivirus Pro, Baidu Internet Security
(English version), Bitdefender Internet Security, B
ullGuard Internet Security, Emsisoft Anti-Malware,
eScan Internet Security, ESET Smart Security, F-Sec
ure Internet Security, Fortinet FortiClient,
Kaspersky Internet Security, Kingsoft Internet Secu
rity, Lavasoft Ad-Aware Free Antivirus+, McAfee
Internet Security, Microsoft Security Essentials, P
anda Cloud Free Antivirus, Qihoo 360 Internet
Security, Sophos Endpoint Security and Control, Ten
cent QQ PC Manager, ThreatTrack Vipre Internet
Security and Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security
.
 
Do those guys at those at AV Comparatives expect me to believe that? I've read enough code and I've spent enough years sitting on a chair typing to know that these tests are nothing more than a money-fed up, bizarre scam. We don't know what they do behind the scenes, we don't know what they do while "testing" a product, we do not know what contract they've made with the AV companies. Can you guys trust my following sentence?
"I am a computer expert. I'd like to tell you that Nano Antivirus is better. It performed excellent in my tests, I own an AV test company named Super Nano Antivirus Technology Inc. Ltd.©™℠ ® which is a multiple-billion dollar$ company. Can you install it from www.referencedbysupernanaoantivirustechnologyfornanoantivirus.com? Thanks. *shows stat*.
 
Last edited:

Cch123

Level 7
Verified
Do those guys at those at AV Comparatives expect me to believe that? I've read enough code and I've spent enough years sitting on a chair typing to know that these tests are nothing more than a money-fed up, bizarre tests. We don't know what they do behind the scenes, we don't know what they do while "testing" a product, we do not know what contract they've made with the AV companies. Can you guys trust my following sentence?
"I am a computer expert. I'd like to tell you that Nano Antivirus is better. It performed excellent in my tests, I own an AV test company named Super Nano Antivirus Technology Inc. Ltd.©™℠ ® which is a multiple-billion dollar$ company. Can you install it from www.referencedbysupernanaoantivirustechnologyfornanoantivirus.com? Thanks. *shows stat*.
They do publish their methodology: http://www.av-comparatives.org/testing-methodology/
Sure, people may disagree with their methodology. But I do not think they are biased as Austrian NGO laws are such that any money they make must be reinvested and not pocketed by the company. There is no reason for them to be biased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: randj89

omidomi

Level 66
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Verified
eset is lower than avg and e-scan?!
bitdefender 0 Fp?!
oh my god!
Good job Avira :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: phyniks

Cch123

Level 7
Verified
eset is lower than avg and e-scan?!
bitdefender 0 Fp?!
oh my god!
Good job Avira :cool:
You have to see the settings that they used. More often than not, vendors will request them to tweak certain settings from the default, which may explain the discrepancy when you test the products yourself etc.

Update: I just checked and in this particular test, AV-C did not publish the settings used. However, in the previous real world tests they used the default settings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.