AV-TEST AV-Test.org Windows 10: June 2020

Disclaimer
  1. This test shows how an antivirus behaves with certain threats, in a specific environment and under certain conditions.
    We encourage you to compare these results with others and take informed decisions on what security products to use.
    Before buying an antivirus you should consider factors such as price, ease of use, compatibility, and support. Installing a free trial version allows an antivirus to be tested in everyday use before purchase.

amico81

Level 21
Thread author
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Jan 10, 2017
1,061
Windows 10: June 2020


here are the new test results.
wondering about the performance of eset...the slowest av
after malwarebytes in this test :oops:
 

blackice

Level 38
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Apr 1, 2019
2,731
Windows 10: June 2020


here are the new test results.
wondering about the performance of eset...the slowest av
after malwarebytes in this test :oops:
Seems like they got dinged hard on file transfer speed on a high end system. Makes me think there was either a bug in ESET, or a bigger network issue/incompatibility.
 

RejZoR

Level 15
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 26, 2016
699
I'll never understand how on earth Windows Defender tops performance tests. It's horrendously slow, particularly on large EXE installers and EXE files in general. Yet somehow it beats avast! which is light years faster. It makes no sense and never has. Literally every solution that I've tried was faster than Windows Defender. And I'm basing this on 3 different systems ranging from really crappy netbook with little ram and eMMC storage to mid range Ryzen 2500U with decent RAM and NVME SSD to a powerful desktop with everything to spare 4 times around. And yet it behaves the same on all 3 systems and is nowhere fast as avast!, Kaspersky Cloud or Bitdefender, yet it's somehow with them in the 6 score category. Ugh?!

EDIT:
It's also funny to compare all the above mentioned products to Windows Defender on "website performance" where avast!, Kaspersky and also Bitdefender do proper webpage scanning and analysis where Windows Defender just checks the URL and that's it. There is nothing to slow anything down, but also doesn't really add any protection value.
 

EndangeredPootis

Level 10
Verified
Well-known
Sep 8, 2019
461
In my case, that and more.
You belive in these tests that are never shown to take place? what about the fact almost all products they test always get a near 100% detection ratio, and the fact if a product has a for example 99% detection ratio it comes last in terms of scoring?

I also took a look at av comparatives latest tests, for example, they found that trend micro had a detection ratio of 100% and bitdefender had a deteciton ratio of 93%, yet bitdefender earned 3 stars while trend micro earned 2, how does that make any sense?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cortex

SeriousHoax

Level 47
Well-known
Mar 16, 2019
3,630
I'll never understand how on earth Windows Defender tops performance tests. It's horrendously slow, particularly on large EXE installers and EXE files in general. Yet somehow it beats avast! which is light years faster. It makes no sense and never has. Literally every solution that I've tried was faster than Windows Defender. And I'm basing this on 3 different systems ranging from really crappy netbook with little ram and eMMC storage to mid range Ryzen 2500U with decent RAM and NVME SSD to a powerful desktop with everything to spare 4 times around. And yet it behaves the same on all 3 systems and is nowhere fast as avast!, Kaspersky Cloud or Bitdefender, yet it's somehow with them in the 6 score category. Ugh?!

EDIT:
It's also funny to compare all the above mentioned products to Windows Defender on "website performance" where avast!, Kaspersky and also Bitdefender do proper webpage scanning and analysis where Windows Defender just checks the URL and that's it. There is nothing to slow anything down, but also doesn't really add any protection value.
You're comments are mostly accurate but not fully. Just looking at the value 6 is the wrong way to look at things here.
If you check the details of performance test then,
Slowing-down when launching popular websites: As you stated, as WD don't have web filtering, it's obvious that it's going to be fast here. So full marks here (y)
Slower download of frequently-used applications: Here again, WD don't do web filtering so it doesn't impact the download speed. The downloaded files will only be scanned after the download is completed so full marks here as well (y)
Slower launch of standard software applications: Here it's about launching applications and WD is generally fast here. Click on your Firefox and it will load it as fast as the fastest AV out there. So, full marks here as well. Though in my own experience, some apps open the slowest with WD eg: Telegram, IDM, Everything and some open the fastest eg: Any browser, Steam, Revo Uninstaller. I would like to know what apps AV-Test actually opens to perform this test. If they disclose it anywhere then please let me know. But on most people's system, for common apps it loads fast (y)
Slower installation of frequently-used applications: This is where what you pointed out comes into play. WD is definitely the slowest in this case out of every AV I tested personally and the test done by them also shows that. It is also known from experts to semi-expert users and even Andy Ful have mentioned this many times in the forum. WD is slow at accessing exe files as well as installing them. So thumbs down (n)
Slower copying of files (locally and in a network): Now this one I'm not so sure about. I've seen WD not impacting copying speed of large files like a 500 mb installer but it slows down copying speed if the files you're copying has many tiny files in it. Copying Firefox profiles is always very slow on my system with WD. I guess, AV-Test, tested large exe, media, etc similar files for testing copying speed here so the outcome turned out to be good for WD (y)

I think since app installing is something a user don't do regularly, they don't prioritize this outcome over other common actions like web browsing, launching applications which we do everyday. As WD did well in the common day to day tasks, I can clearly understand why and how on average it got a 6 out of 6 in performance. With 6 on protection with 100% detection, 6 on usability with 0 FP, this is one of the best results WD ever achieved (y)
But then again, tests are subjective, AV's may behave differently on different systems based on many things so one shouldn't fully rely on these tests only and use whatever floats your boat (y)
 

RejZoR

Level 15
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 26, 2016
699
I see some stupid insane delay between execution of something as simple as timer tool that I have on my laptop with Windows Defender. I haven't changed that tool for years and it's a single EXE and yet it takes several seconds to execute with Windows Defender. It's somewhat faster if I keep executing it in a 5 minute timeframe, but if I have to execute that timer tool every evening once, it's ridiculously slow. And the file has been on the same drive in same location for ages. Where with avast!, when I click it, it launches almost instantly. And it doesn't matter if it's within same 5 minute timeframe or only once per evening. And that's what's bothering me. That idiotic delay like its cache is total garbage and when scan engine has to actually analyze things it's slow as a dead hippo. And it has been this way since beginning of its existence and it doesn't seem like Microsoft has done anything to address this.
 

Andy Ful

From Hard_Configurator Tools
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Developer
Well-known
Dec 23, 2014
8,040
I see some stupid insane delay between execution of something as simple as timer tool that I have on my laptop with Windows Defender. I haven't changed that tool for years and it's a single EXE and yet it takes several seconds to execute with Windows Defender. It's somewhat faster if I keep executing it in a 5 minute timeframe, but if I have to execute that timer tool every evening once, it's ridiculously slow. And the file has been on the same drive in same location for ages. Where with avast!, when I click it, it launches almost instantly. And it doesn't matter if it's within same 5 minute timeframe or only once per evening. And that's what's bothering me. That idiotic delay like its cache is total garbage and when scan engine has to actually analyze things it's slow as a dead hippo. And it has been this way since beginning of its existence and it doesn't seem like Microsoft has done anything to address this.
The "stupid" WD behaviors are known for a long time and are clearly visible in the tests. Most people can avoid them, some do not. Any AV has some "stupid" behaviors as you probably already know (also Avast which I personally like). After reading your posts, one can get the impression that WD includes only "stupid" behaviors and features. If it is fast on something, then it is not good. If it is slow on something then it is even worse. :unsure:
I feel that you can be slightly more objective if you will bother to try. (y)
 
Last edited:

Lenny_Fox

Level 22
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Oct 1, 2019
1,120
I'll never understand how on earth Windows Defender tops performance tests. It's horrendously slow, particularly on large EXE installers and EXE files in general. Yet somehow it beats avast! which is light years faster. It makes no sense and never has. Literally every solution that I've tried was faster than Windows Defender. And I'm basing this on 3 different systems ranging from really crappy netbook with little ram and eMMC storage to mid range Ryzen 2500U with decent RAM and NVME SSD to a powerful desktop with everything to spare 4 times around. And yet it behaves the same on all 3 systems and is nowhere fast as avast!, Kaspersky Cloud or Bitdefender, yet it's somehow with them in the 6 score category. Ugh?!
On my previous low spec dual core celeron (from 2010) Windows Defender was the fastest of all free AV's in terms of lanching applications, Bitdefender came second and Avast free was third. I measured it with AppTimer (5 runs) so it was not feeling, but factual data.

@SeriousHoax explained why it makes sense that WD scores high on those tests. I also agree with @Andy Ful that you are not objective, but to be honest, I like to read your rants, they are funny and a good read (from UX-perspective your rants often make sence). RejZoR rants are best consumed with a "grain of salt".
 

CyberTech

Level 44
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 10, 2017
3,247
Hello,
And if you compare these results to av-comparatives performance test, ESET is one of the fastest. The same goes for Trend Micro, in av-comparatives test it's one of the slowest, but in av-test performance test it's one of the fastest. Confusing. :unsure:

Kind regards,
-sepik


AV-Test’s tests are generally nonsensical.


Agree with both of you! they didnt tell us which CPU they use how many RAM do they have, SSD or HDD, which versions of Windows, etc!
 

RejZoR

Level 15
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 26, 2016
699
On my previous low spec dual core celeron (from 2010) Windows Defender was the fastest of all free AV's in terms of lanching applications, Bitdefender came second and Avast free was third. I measured it with AppTimer (5 runs) so it was not feeling, but factual data.

@SeriousHoax explained why it makes sense that WD scores high on those tests. I also agree with @Andy Ful that you are not objective, but to be honest, I like to read your rants, they are funny and a good read (from UX-perspective your rants often make sence). RejZoR rants are best consumed with a "grain of salt".

Not objective? WHAT? Not objective would be "Windows Defender sux ass" and leaving it at that. Explaining how it keeps on sucking at speed across a range of lowest end, mid end to top end devices consistently, means I've observed its behavior and formed an objective opinion that it sucks at speed. And I also told you conditions. If you just repeatedly launch same file it'll be fast. Launching that file once every day makes it horrendously slow beyond the slowness of any competitor product. Meaning their caching mechanism is quite frankly pathetic and I'd expect better from a giant company like Microsoft. Especially when it's done on an OS level with unlimited access to whatever they want to do with it (unlike 3rd parties who need to use whatever Microsoft allows them yet they still beat it at the same game).

I don't need a timer when gap difference is so big it often crosses my mind that I haven't double clicked it correctly. And then it finally launches. With other AV's, the gap between double click and execution is so short I don't have time to ask myself that. Do you really need a "timer" for that?

Also doing it 5 times for "accuracy" just tells me you don't really understand how scan optimizations (scan caching) works.

And lastly, I doubt that my Atom Z8350 is faster than your Dual Core Celeron from X yeas ago.
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top