AV-Comparatives:Real-World Protection Tests August 2014

[Petrovic]

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/avc_factsheet2014_08.pdf

 

[Striker]

Hmm, well done Avira. But panda, that fp rate..Avast again does bad in these tests..

 

[Petrovic]

Panda - 34Fp

 

[rebel4life]

wondering what avira they used paid or free only anti-virus or internet security

 

[Sven]

WARNING! Most common comment incoming!

"Ehhh, you know, I dont trust to these financially well-supported comparatives and tests. Let's keep on going with our choices and not care about these results."

Just my two cents.

 

[NSG001]

These tests are always good for a larf
Amazed how Bullguard have fallen so much.

 

[jackuars]

wondering what avira they used paid or free only anti-virus or internet security

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

While Avast sends their free version.

 

[Dani Santos]

how bitdefender and avira detects more than 360 if 360 uses both engines?

 

[Striker]

how bitdefender and avira detects more than 360 if 360 uses both engines?

Qihoo dont use ActiveVirusControl from bitdefender, dont use Bitdefender Cloud. Same for Aviras Cloud and other stuff.

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

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.

 

[FlimFlam]

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
.

 

[Cch123]

These tests are always good for a larf
Amazed how Bullguard have fallen so much.

Technically speaking, bullguard did not do that badly. It only allowed 0.7% of the samples to compromise the test system. It is positioned near the end because it requires the user to make a decision for quite a lot of cases.

 

[NullPointerException]

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*.

 

[Cch123]

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.

 

[Anupam]

Where is Norton?

 

[omidomi]

Where is Norton?

norton is the right out side

 

[Razor555]

Panda - 34Fp

Better safe than sorry.

 

[Cch123]

Where is Norton?

Norton disagreed with AV-C's file detection test. Since AV-C does not allow vendors to participate in just a few tests, they withdrew completely.

 

[omidomi]

eset is lower than avg and e-scan?!
bitdefender 0 Fp?!
oh my god!
Good job Avira

 

[Cch123]

eset is lower than avg and e-scan?!
bitdefender 0 Fp?!
oh my god!
Good job Avira

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.