Status
Not open for further replies.

Online_Sword

New Member
Verified
Trusted
Because Comdo has extremely weak signatures? They are testing with standard settings and standard Comdo settings are horrible.
Does AV-Test only test signature-based scanning?
As I know, the default setting of CIS will enable the auto-sandbox.
In my opinion, the protection capability of CIS with auto-sandbox enabled is good.
 

Atlas147

Level 30
Verified
Content Creator
Looks like the samples used this month were pretty prevalent, most of the AVs got full marks on the protection test. Very sad to see that ESET is not socring as well as it could be :(
 

JD15

New Member
Microsoft's Windows Defender is the clear winner without a doubt. lol. It's hard to believe that a lot of people still use it with confidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frogboy

Enju

New Member
Does AV-Test only test signature-based scanning?
As I know, the default setting of CIS will enable the auto-sandbox.
In my opinion, the protection capability of CIS with auto-sandbox enabled is good.
The sandbox is okay but not perfect, quite often samples either execute outside of it or the just don't care about the sandbox and just do their deed. Just because Comodo calls something sandboxed doesn't mean it can't do any harm. (Comodo is not the only one doing this, there are others which shall not be named or otherwise the cool aid drinkers show up again...)
 

Anupam

Level 21
I can still believe that ESET is doing bad in protection but how come in performance too it's so bad.
 

JD15

New Member
Because Comdo has extremely weak signatures? They are testing with standard settings and standard Comdo settings are horrible.
Comodo's standard default setting used to be excellent years back, since users had been complaining about too many popups the company changed the default setting to reduce amount of popups and that result to slightly weaker performance.
 

Enju

New Member
I can still believe that ESET is doing bad in protection but how come in performance too it's so bad.
Eset has agressive standard settings, it scans on opening, saving and executing so the performance of installers and opening documents and files drops considerably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FireShootSK

Nico@FMA

Level 27
The score of Comodo...why?
This is to underline how crappy and weak the security actually is, if Comodo on basic settings cannot match that of others then how much less protection would they give on max settings? In all seriousness Comodo's only plus point at this point is their Firewall which is rather good YET due its NON smart configuration it provides a placebo security effect because even techy guys get lost in the ocean of features.

The score of Norton Security 2015. :D
Yes always a strong contender and always a solid performer and imo a top 5 brand by all standards.



Because Comdo has extremely weak signatures? They are testing with standard settings and standard Comdo settings are horrible.
Guess what? the settings of every package is horrible and Comodo is no exception yet the difference between lets say Norton and Comodo is that the settings within Norton DO WORK... something that cannot be said about Comodo...


@All think what you want to think but there are only a few brands worth mentioning in the List and Brands like Qihoo, Tencent and Comodo are certainly not worth it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

hjlbx

Comodo is capable of extraordinarily complex rules. This is way too much for typical user so Comodo developers optimize CIS for the least amount of alerts so as not to overwhelm users.

To make matters worse, the CIS user-interface is all manner of confusing quirky behaviors (bugs). Add to all of this a problematic combined Cloud service - and it just ain't good for the average user.

I will state this much: I will gladly put my customized CIS configuration up against any AV test lab.

That's the point - CIS needs experienced user who is willing to craft his\her own rules and policies. That's something even "advanced" users won't even dare to mess with. Do it incorrectly and you have smashed, unbootable system.

CIS is not for amateur night - and at the same time - the AV-Test is not designed to comprehensively test Comodo nor any other AV for that matter. There are those that know precisely what I am talking about - because they understand what AV-Test evaluates and does not evaluate.

So those are some of the facts - and just won't change until Comodo refines their product = fixing bugs, eliminating questionable features, making CIS management\administration more user-friendly, etc.

I am experienced CIS user - and, in my experience, CIS is just plain overkill for typical use. For it to be effective it requires too much manual administration and how it works is incomprehensible for average user. I use it because I genuinely like it; it is configured to behave (for the most part), is quiet on my relatively simplistic system, and it handles malicious files like no other AV that I can find. So for me, it personally works. That is not true for the vast majority of users - which is Nico@FMA's argument. And, unfortunately, that is Comdo reality...

Anyhow...

I tell it like it is - Comodo is very good in some respects, but at the same time, has a lot of issues that sow nothing but confusion with most users - and it is not intended to be a complete internet security suite. CIS is designed only to keep the physical system clean - and not stop malware from getting onto your system (which is the whole premise of AV-Test methodology).

Comodo is "Old School" and its management can be way too laborious for the uninitiated. My CIS config keeps my system clean despite heavy malware testing. The defining factor is I know how to use it to its fullest capabilities... so, despite what Comodo says, CIS is best suited to techies and security soft geeks. That's it.

Bottom line: If you can do it, then CIS can do it...

Good - yes, Great - no, needs refined, Garbage - absolutely not
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Exterminator

Community Manager
Verified
Staff member
It makes for some interesting viewing but I take these with a grain of salt.No Emsisoft ? and a product I have used for over 15 years does bad in protection and performance.Why would I rely on the information provided in these tests when I have not had an infection in over 15 years using that same security solution which did not do well in this test.
IMO stick with what works for you and don't let these tests cloud your judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.