DeepWeb

Level 23
Verified
All the AVs that I am interested in were not even tested.... yawn.
Where's Emisosoft, Zemana, IntelliAV? Why is it so hard to find a pure AV in the Play Store anymore? The AVs they tested come with soooo much bloat they might as well be malware themselves. Google Play Protect performed horrible as expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InnoScorpio

Moonhorse

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator
Im using comodo antivirus on my oneplus 5t, it only runs when i install something from store. Not really needed but i like the ui :rolleyes:

Barely using browser on my phone ( waterfox) mostly using reddit/ news apps to read newspapers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nestor and stefanos

InnoScorpio

Level 1
These overrated, score inflated, and lenient tests do not provide a true indication on how antivirus software can protect you. Rely on antivirus apps with at least three or more different types of detection -- signatures, heuristics, cloud, reputation, and behavioral-based for detection.
The AV vendors that cheat on these kinds of tests:
  • Sophos uses reputation-based detection to flag malicious and less-known to get 100% score when it has mediocre malware detection. Too many false positives as justified for the usability. Same for Symantec but it is balanced.
  • Antiy uses an aggressive adware detection that give some false positives and does not specifically identify malware as intended. Antiy however has heuristics. The same for Cheetah Mobile and the rogueware copycat MAX Security. ESET, Kaspersky, and Dr. Web also have heuristics.
  • Avast is reliant on low reputation detection while having an above average AV engine. Avast's mobile AV engine is above average and worst from what is used to be. PSafe or any other Android antivirus app that uses Avast AV engine is weaker without the low reputation feature that is available in AVG or Avast.
  • Tencent used similar adware detection mechanisms that Antiy has to get an advantage.
 
Last edited: