AV-TEST AV-Test February 2019 Windows 10

[Solarquest]

Test antivirus software for Windows 10 - February 2019

The current tests of antivirus software for Windows 10 from February 2019 of AV-TEST, the leading international and independent service provider for antivirus software and malware.

www.av-test.org

 

[HarborFront]

Sophos not there?

 

[jackwilli]

Sophos not there?

ESET also???

 

[conceptualclarity]

So McAfee may be finally back?

 

[Burrito]

Sophos not there?

ESET also???

They are both in the 'Windows Test for Business Users.' While in that test they don't test the home product, often test results are very similar in 'home' tests and 'business' tests.

Test antivirus software for Windows 10 - February 2019

So McAfee may be finally back?

Maybe. But I doubt it. McAfee has been 'coming back' for about 15 years... they occasionally turn out a good test result, and then they go back to their apparent default position -- mediocrity.

--------------

And only one brand got straight 6's in every test.

 

[Brie]

according to this test, McAfee scored better than kaspersky. i find this test suspicious. any one else?

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

according to this test, McAfee scored better than kaspersky. i find this test suspicious. any one else?

Well any product can do well. Every test is largely dependent on the sample set used. To be fair they scored the same protection wise, Kaspersky lost marks in the performance section, which varies from system to system anyways. Aside from the 0.5 difference in performance they scored the same, so I don't think McAfee scored better than Kaspersky IMO. If anything all this test shows is that all products are virtually equal more or less.

 

[Brie]

mcafee was infected 1 out of 3 times in MT hub.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

so mcafee is as good as kaspersky...cough...cough...

Look, if you don't like McAfee that's totally fine. Just because they may have not done well in the past, doesn't mean they cannot improve. It's the same with WD. It pretty much use to be at the bottom of the pile, but has steadily improved. Kaspersky is a very good program, no questions, but it's not perfect either. At the end of the day I always say to take any test with a grain of salt, but as I've said, just because a product use to fall somewhere in past tests, does not mean it is bound to stay there for eternity. Products can improve and if that's whats happening, then that's great!

 

[Burrito]

Look, if you don't like McAfee that's totally fine. Just because they may have not done well in the past, doesn't mean they cannot improve. It's the same with WD. It pretty much use to be at the bottom of the pile, but has steadily improved. Kaspersky is a very good program, no questions, but it's not perfect either. At the end of the day I always say to take any test with a grain of salt, but as I've said, just because a product use to fall somewhere in past tests, does not mean it is bound to stay there for eternity. Products can improve and if that's whats happening, then that's great!

Of course, you are correct @Raiden.

Products rise and fall over time.

I admit, I'm skeptical of McAfee.... it's been a long long time since they were good.

I actually get McAfee free two different ways.... and I don't use it.

But.... I hope they are improving. Maybe this is a start. Competition is good.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

Of course, you are correct @Raiden.

Products rise and fall over time.

I admit, I'm skeptical of McAfee.... it's been a long long time since they were good.

I actually get McAfee free two different ways.... and I don't use it.

But.... I hope they are improving. Maybe this is a start. Competition is good.

I agree whole hardheartedly and that's my point. I'm not against tests or anything, nor am I saying to ignore the results, but I try to have an open mind and realize that tests should be taken with a grain of salt and that programs do go up and down. I'm just not in favor of writing it off, or saying it's made up essentially because a product that did poorly in the past shouldn't be allowed to improve. I do get the skepticism, but I try to encourage that people have an open mind and realize that it is possible for products to improve. Like you said, more competition make it better for everyone.

 

[shmu26]

I agree with the above posters that a product should be judged over a period of time, not by just one test, and I attribute a certain degree of credence to official AV testing. They test real-life malware protection more accurately than private testing (including malwarehub testing), for a number of reasons.
1 Age of samples. In real life, you don't always encounter zero-day, totally fresh samples
2 Type of sample. The malware packages that pen-testers use are not the same mix of malware that the average user encounters.
3 Manner of malware delivery. In real life, you don't usually get your malware delivered in downloaded rar folders full of goodies, to be run on your desktop. The way your AV and your OS reacts to malware is heavily influenced by the delivery method.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

I agree with the above posters that a product should be judged over a period of time, not by just one test, and I attribute a certain degree of credence to official AV testing. They test real-life malware protection more accurately than private testing (including malwarehub testing), for a number of reasons.
1 Age of samples. In real life, you don't always encounter zero-day, totally fresh samples
2 Type of sample. The malware packages that pen-testers use are not the same mix of malware that the average user encounters.
3 Manner of malware delivery. In real life, you don't usually get your malware delivered in downloaded rar folders full of goodies, to be run on your desktop. The way your AV and your OS reacts to malware is heavily influenced by the delivery method.

I agree!

I was trying to say that, however you did it far better than me hehe.

You have to look at a range of tests to get any picture of whats happening, furthermore look at other tests from other people/organizations to see if it is a one off, or a consistent thing. In regards to McAfee, I happened to go look back at some of the previous AV-comparative tests done recently and there too they were scoring very well. While it still may be a little early, it seems like they are definitely trending in the right direction, but as you said, time will tell.

I also agree with your point of how tests are performed and what it could mean for the overall results. A lot of what you see on YouTube and even the HUB (nothing against the hub at all:emoji_innocent, don't often represent the real world, nor how malware can appear on the system. A random folder of malware doesn't automatically appear on the desktop, there has to be a delivery method associated with it (ie: downloading from a website, opening an email attachment, visiting an infected site taking advantage of an un-patched exploit, etc...)

A lot of YouTube tests and even the HUB (again no offence intended) ignore the web component of every AV they test, so how do you know if the web component would have protected the system, or not? In terms of WD and Smartscreen they use the mark of the web, which doesn't work if a folder is taken off a local server, or a USB stick, etc... At the end of the day the method does in fact matter. IMHO the various security companies focus their efforts on preventing malware from getting on the system in the first place, which means stopping it from common entry points (ie: the web). They focus on how people use their computers in real life and how malware can get on to the system in real life.

Malware testing isn't easy, but they are fun, however we just need to remember to look at the bigger picture and shouldn't pass judgment one way or another based on 1 or 2 test results.

 

[shmu26]

I agree!

I was trying to say that, however you did it far better than me hehe.

You have to look at a range of tests to get any picture of whats happening, furthermore look at other tests from other people/organizations to see if it is a one off, or a consistent thing. In regards to McAfee, I happened to go look back at some of the previous AV-comparative tests done recently and there too they were scoring very well. While it still may be a little early, it seems like they are definitely trending in the right direction, but as you said, time will tell.

I also agree with your point of how tests are performed and what it could mean for the overall results. A lot of what you see on YouTube and even the HUB (nothing against the hub at all:emoji_innocent, don't often represent the real world, nor how malware can appear on the system. A random folder of malware doesn't automatically appear on the desktop, there has to be a delivery method associated with it (ie: downloading from a website, opening an email attachment, visiting an infected site taking advantage of an un-patched exploit, etc...)

A lot of YouTube tests and even the HUB (again no offence intended) ignore the web component of every AV they test, so how do you know if the web component would have protected the system, or not? In terms of WD and Smartscreen they use the mark of the web, which doesn't work if a folder is taken off a local server, or a USB stick, etc... At the end of the day the method does in fact matter. IMHO the various security companies focus their efforts on preventing malware from getting on the system in the first place, which means stopping it from common entry points (ie: the web). They focus on how people use their computers in real life and how malware can get on to the system in real life.

Malware testing isn't easy, but they are fun, however we just need to remember to look at the bigger picture and shouldn't pass judgment one way or another based on 1 or 2 test results.

+1
I think that malwarehub testing shows how well a certain software performs under the hardest conditions -- fresh malware that sneaks on your system without the mark of the web. It's sort of like hand-to-hand combat. But a good hand-to-hand combat soldier might be an only average soldier in a conventional warfare situation. And vice versa.

 

[silversurfer]

A lot of YouTube tests and even the HUB (again no offence intended) ignore the web component of every AV they test, so how do you know if the web component would have protected the system, or not? In terms of WD and Smartscreen they use the mark of the web, which doesn't work if a folder is taken off a local server, or a USB stick, etc... At the end of the day the method does in fact matter. IMHO the various security companies focus their efforts on preventing malware from getting on the system in the first place, which means stopping it from common entry points (ie: the web). They focus on how people use their computers in real life and how malware can get on to the system in real life.

Malware-Hub AV-Tests including web-protection against Malware/malicious-links aren't really easy to perform, the reason is that these links are faster offline than testers are able to test, all testers would need testing within a few hours after the links are published in the Malware-Hub, that's almost impossible because some testers living in different countries with different time-zones, so all tests are even more worse to compare with each other than tests using only malware samples...

 

[bribon77]

I think the MT Malware Hub tests have a lot of merit.
Because tests are done with malware already on the desktop, that is, from you to you.

While that does not happen in real life, because the malware will be detected before it reaches the desktop
or not, usually if they detect it.

 

[Local Host]

Windows Defender performed as expected, high performance hit when dealing with Software and False Positives.

Kaspersky was hammered in Web Site performance, turning OFF script injection should help with that.

Norton scored perfect as always, it's a shame about the bugs we can encounter in their Home Products.

Honestly would never use McAfee regardless of what testing says, due to their company standards and origins, this is personal opinion though.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

Malware-Hub AV-Tests including web-protection against Malware/malicious-links aren't really easy to perform, the reason is that these links are faster offline than testers are able to test, all testers would need testing within a few hours after the links are published in the Malware-Hub, that's almost impossible because some testers living in different countries with different time-zones, so all tests are even more worse to compare with each other than tests using only malware samples...

Spot on!

For the record, I just want to say that I am in no way saying the HUB tests are inferior, so I do apologize if it came across that way. I agree with your explanation 100%, I think it just reinforces that in order to test the product in real-world scenarios, it's quite difficult and there are a lot of obstacles/considerations when performing/designing a test.

 

[shmu26]

Spot on!

For the record, I just want to say that I am in no way saying the HUB tests are inferior, so I do apologize if it came across that way. I agree with your explanation 100%, I think it just reinforces that in order to test the product in real-world scenarios, it's quite difficult and there are a lot of obstacles/considerations when performing/designing a test.

+1
I emphasized certain advantages of the official testing methods only because many people disdainfully dismiss their results, without getting the whole picture. MalwareHub testing is great and totally necessary; with both together, we get a much broader picture.

 

[Moonhorse]

Bitdefender scoring 5.5/6 seems realistic, sadly the test is always done with default settings wich isnt really telling anything about performance/usability/protection when you can tweak out settings as advanced user and has total different results

The test seems just very minimalistic for home users to make a decision wich antivirus they should choose, probably just hitting the protection 6 is what they do. But if you take a look on avs scoring 6, there all pretty good choises to be honest