AV Comparitives latest "real world protection" results!

[Venustus]

Here:
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2013&month=12&sort=1&zoom=2

And the PDF:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/avc_prot_2013b_en.pdf

 

[OptimusPrime]

Thanks for the links

 

[Ink]

Microsoft is pushing the baseline standard there, of 91.9%. Also keep an eye on the FP-rates.

Does Bitdefender use any whitelisting?

 

[Jaspion]

Interesting results, Panda going very strong, and using the free version for these tests. I have it on two relatives' computers and never had any troubles (despite the high number of reported FPs). Thanks for the share!

 

[bunyip783]

No surprises at all . Am I the only one who very, very strongly agrees with their testing methods? User dependency is a major issue for so many security programs and I'm glad they're recognising that in their tests.

 

[aztony]

Interesting results, Panda going very strong, and using the free version for these tests. I have it on two relatives' computers and never had any troubles (despite the high number of reported FPs). Thanks for the share!

I've been using Panda Cloud, 2.2, 2.2.1 & 2.3, to date I haven't experienced 1 FP. So I was surprised by the number cited in this report.

 

[Jaspion]

It's interesting that these false positives were all URLs, not files.

 

[aztony]

No surprises at all . User dependency is a major issue for so many security programs and I'm glad they're recognising that in their tests.

It has been a real issue for AVG, and I think one of the reasons why some people's perception the AV is distorted.

 

[bunyip783]

It has been a real issue for AVG, and I think one of the reasons why some people's perception the AV is distorted.

Still don't think it's that effective though compared to many others out there. I'd rather use Security Essentials. Do you utilize the toolbar/webfilter in panda? Really dislike toolbars personally.

 

[aztony]

Still don't think it's that effective though compared to many others out there. I'd rather use Security Essentials.

Since you do AV reviews/tests, why don't you do one on the latest free offering and post the results? I just did a search to see if that was done already, but the search feature doesn't appear to be working.

 

[bunyip783]

Since you do AV reviews/tests, why don't you do one on the latest free offering and post the results? I just did a search to see if that was done already, but the search feature doesn't appear to be working.

Plan to try it out next.

 

[MrExplorer]

Source​

 

[Exterminator]

They forgot to add something to the Results & legend

$ Donated

 

[woomera]

-kingsoft has done awfully horrible in 2013. not really a surprise since they havent updated it for a long time.
-AVG is bad, as always(never liked it personally, its a system hugger and slow)
-really nice to see panda doing so good. FP's can be problematic though.

the rest are nothing new.

 

[DaZa9]

After testing Trend Micro Here I can see they paid them well.

 

[Jaspion]

Worthless user tests from across the globe show quite consistent results. All serious testing organizations disagree with each other's ratings.

 

[WalterWolf]

Out-of-box is with MSE or without MSE ?

 

[DaZa9]

Worthless user tests from across the globe show quite consistent results. All serious testing organizations disagree with each other's ratings.

Agree. but detecting only 5 files of 180?

 

[Jaspion]

I was referring more to the overall tests. Trend Micro's result there may have been just a fart, I don't know.

 

[aztony]

quote="woomera, post: 148013, member: 1147"]AVG is bad, as always(never liked it personally, its a system hugger and slow)

I think that shows in your very distorted view. I realize that people's perception are often subjective and tend to be clouded by biases, but when was the last time you used AVG? I used it for 2+ yrs on (2) systems, one of which was a low resource XP desktop bought in '04 with 1GB max RAM, and saw no evidence of a system drain on resources. Sure, there were two others that were lighter on RAM, Avast, and Panda. As for it being 'bad' in this test result, bad must be like beauty, all in the eye of the beholder. AVG had a 1.4% of misses with a 5.8% user dependency. I don't know what that means to you but what it tells me is that a lot of AVG's efficacy in the hands of the user behind the keyboard and mouse.