- Sep 7, 2016
- 77
av-comparatives Summary Report 2019
- Thread starter aliali
- Start date
- Jan 9, 2017
- 246
Just look at Aug-Oct 2019 Real world protection (Eset and F-secure)
Really?they got the lowest point among all AVs
Naaaaa, Both of them are better than that!
Really?they got the lowest point among all AVs
Naaaaa, Both of them are better than that!
- Aug 4, 2016
- 1,465
Looking at the full report it's getting like children's sports days recently in the UK, everyone's a winner at some point, lest someone get upset - Unimpressed with tests such as these, esp these days - I feel info on here, my own experiences & the fact most AV's are half decent, mean I use the AV I like the feel of: On this PC Emsisoft, though that's just for me.
Last edited:
- Oct 11, 2014
- 317
Bitdefender proves to the world that it is number one in digital protection
Bitdefender and Kaspersky Kings
Avast and AVG good
ESET and McAfee low performance.
Bitdefender and Kaspersky Kings
Avast and AVG good
ESET and McAfee low performance.
- Aug 4, 2016
- 1,465
To me it's quite apparent there is no perfect AV, there are so many factors involved, your PC hardware config, software installed, how you use your PC, your wants & needs all add up to finding AV's you like & trying them out - Then: Don't be swayed by tests that downgrade your AV from the last test (month) - Most is marketing, if you do that you'll be changing AV's more often than your..erm socks?
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,900
While there's Bitdefender, there's you. Even your DP is an old Bitdefender logo. Do you work for them?
Don't be offended just poking fun at you but I'm sure others have noticed this as well. Everyone has their favorite product I guess.
- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
Malware protection is hard for people to judge on their own, because most of us don't encounter enough malware to produce statistically significant results.
The thing I don't get is the performance ratings. That's something the average user is capable of judging on his own, but the results are puzzling. Bitdefender is famous for slowing down the system, yet it gets great scores in the performance category. Can someone explain this? Has Bitdefender improved greatly in performance?
The thing I don't get is the performance ratings. That's something the average user is capable of judging on his own, but the results are puzzling. Bitdefender is famous for slowing down the system, yet it gets great scores in the performance category. Can someone explain this? Has Bitdefender improved greatly in performance?
- Jul 6, 2017
- 2,392
- May 26, 2014
- 1,341
Hindenburg
Level 1
- Feb 5, 2020
- 15
Maybe Webroot.
I think that the other AVs ganged up on Webroot to keep them out of AV-Corncavities. Maybe Webroot is so much better, they figure out ways to keep them out. It's possibly a conspiracy.
As Night Stalker says, here we go again.
Actually, I'm not sure what he's getting at there. Here we go again where?
I see, I see...
1- you purposely create strong responses to your posts.
2- you are a very beginner and praise every fallen AVs. Lol.
- Apr 1, 2019
- 2,869
- Oct 11, 2014
- 317
I do not work for themWhile there's Bitdefender, there's you. Even your DP is an old Bitdefender logo. Do you work for them?
Don't be offended just poking fun at you but I'm sure others have noticed this as well. Everyone has their favorite product I guess.
I prefer Bitdefender / GDATA / McAfee .
Bitdefender at the top, the best AV ever
Debating endlessly about these AV test lab results won't result in better protection. It's all wasted effort, but it sure makes for good entertainment.
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,900
According to AV-Comparatives, 99% is 3-star and 98% is 1-star. So........Just look at Aug-Oct 2019 Real world protection (Eset and F-secure)
Really?they got the lowest point among all AVs
Naaaaa, Both of them are better than that!
- Jul 6, 2017
- 2,392
They are great, politicians.
Probably because BitDefender engine primarily stresses the disk access, memory and CPU. In my observation (I have used/tested many implementations of BitDefender including the SDK versions), the engine is not heavy on I/O calls or adding latency to operations of the system.
This means that if you have a good CPU (with as many threads as possible), a fast SSD and about 8 GB of RAM, BitDefender (and it's cousins/brothers of SDK) would probably end up being very, very light.
Let's have a look at AV-Comparatives' test computer:
That's very good and a optimal case for functioning of BitDefender engine (8 thread, 4 core CPU and high speed disk access). Certain SDK brothers of BitDefender amp up the thread count and disk access to the max since most of the SDK products do not utilise the photon performance enhancing technology of BitDefender (except ArcaVir). This allows them to sometimes get better performance scores than BD itself.
Though, AV-Test gives a better picture, the fact is that even the "Standard PC" of AV-Test uses 8GB of RAM and a SSD, the only drawback is a dual core CPU (4 threads).
Things are going to be very different on a PC with 4GB or 6GB RAM, an older gen CPU (yes, people are still using 3rd, 4th gen Intel Core CPUs and AMD FX/Athlon/APU) and a standard HDD, but these aren't being tested anymore.
They are great, politicians.
Without any real effort I can make a test where 50% is 3 star and 40% is 1 star.
I've only got 2nd gen i5s in the computers I use daily. They're fast enough for what I use them for, but some antivirus software will cause very noticeable slowdowns.
Similar threads
