AV-Comparatives - Summary Report 2018

[shmu26]

Avast! is very light, there are no surprises here.

Bronze prize because it was ranked at the 3rd place (behind ESET and K7) and it won the "advanced +" badge.

Performance Test October 2018

AV-Comparatives released the Performance Test Report October 2018 for consumer security products under Microsoft Windows 10

www.av-comparatives.org

Thanks for clarification. Now I get what it means.

 

[stefanos]

Avast! is very light, there are no surprises here.

Bronze prize because it was ranked at the 3rd place (behind ESET and K7) and it won the "advanced +" badge.

Performance Test October 2018

AV-Comparatives released the Performance Test Report October 2018 for consumer security products under Microsoft Windows 10

www.av-comparatives.org

+1

 

[Brie]

these tests look suspicious throughout the whole year. symantec, f-secure and trend micro did poorly throughout the whole year.

avast did better than kaspersky, eset, symantec and emsisoft.

 

[L0ckJaw]

these tests look suspicious throughout the whole year. symantec, f-secure and trend micro did poorly throughout the whole year.

avast did better than kaspersky, eset, symantec and emsisoft.

Just my thoughts.... those sites are sponsored by the highest bidder.

 

[Brie]

is avira and vipre really that good?

 

[dash]

is avira and vipre really that good?

Yes.

 

[Cortex]

these tests look suspicious throughout the whole year. symantec, f-secure and trend micro did poorly throughout the whole year.

avast did better than kaspersky, eset, symantec and emsisoft.

I would hardly say they did poorly, the monthly or three monthly charts usually start at 75% thereby magnifying any 'issues', an AV that achieves 99% or more & or has a few FP's hasn't done badly at all. This is what causes AV jumping, a decent AV will be removed because it didn't win AV of the year or a top award, most of the tested AV's by comparatives are good & it's down to personal choice. Reminds me of a magazine What-Hi-Fi I used to read which had people buying a new amp/system etc every year as their gear dropped a star (not 5 stars) when it was still really good

 

[Cortex]

is avira and vipre really that good?

It depends what you are looking for in a solution they arn't for me, but that my personal choice.

 

[dash]

@Brie VIPRE uses BD sigs for awhile now so it's up there. Avira has pretty much always had top notch detection. I won't say they make for the best suites or whatever, but they have good sigs, yes.

 

[Brie]

i just checked in the hub and avira was not clean or infected 3 out of 4 times.

 

[dash]

i just checked in the hub and avira was not clean or infected 3 out of 4 times.

Lol the sample size is pretty small there, I would take those results with a grain of salt. I think even some other company/companies use Avira sigs. Bottom line, pair either AV with VoodooShield or Sandboxie and you're set.

 

[uduoix]

More they pay, better results they have. Pretty much like every reviews/test website.

 

[shmu26]

Guys, the testing conditions in the MT malware hub are totally different. It is a synthetic test, it is downloading zipped packages of very fresh malware samples and then running them on the desktop of a properly secured virtual machine.
The AV-Comparative tests are much more like real life.

 

[sepik]

I do like MT malware hub tests, because of fresh, almost "0-day malware samples" tested. Especially im interested how different AV vendors so called "Behavior Blockers" caught some unknown malwares(malwares without signatures). I think some ransomwares needs a "direct disk access" or "raw disk access" to rapidly encrypt files.
Anyway, /me nods all the hard working HUB malware suppliers and testers!

 

[dash]

I do like MT malware hub tests, because of fresh, almost "0-day malware samples" tested. Especially im interested how different AV vendors so called "Behavior Blockers" caught some unknown malwares(malwares without signatures). I think some ransomwares needs a "direct disk access" or "raw disk access" to rapidly encrypt files.
Anyway, /me nods all the hard working HUB malware suppliers and testers!

No one is disrespecting the Malware Hub here, but this particular thread is about the newest AV-C report.

 

[sepik]

@dash, yes, sorry. Just wanted to drop a line about different testing methods.

 

[dash]

@dash, yes, sorry. Just wanted to drop a line about different testing methods.

No, my fault. I'm just more aware now of threads going off-topic. Sorry.

 

[shmu26]

i just checked in the hub and avira was not clean or infected 3 out of 4 times

That makes sense, because Avira has good sigs, and poor behavior blocker. When the malware is very fresh, like in the Malware Hub tests, behavior blocking is extremely important.

 

[legendcampos]

I never had good eyes for avast, always try and does not seem to work right on my system it downloads virus after a time of use.

 

[dash]

I never had good eyes for avast, always try and does not seem to work right on my system it downloads virus after a time of use.

My problem with Avast is, at least on my system, it's too heavy. And nowadays it's bloated. Heavy and bloated, no dice. I might try it again someday though as I understand most people find it to be pretty light, I'd just need to customize the install or something to avoid the bloat. Also the Android apps, there's just too many of them, like Norton or Kaspersky. Better a bunch than all that bloat in one big fat app though..