Av-test Windows 10: October 2018 Home User

[Solarquest]

During September and October 2018 19 home user security products using their default settings were tested.....

Update with link that didn't show up in the thread...
Test antivirus software for Windows 10 - October 2018

 

[Genux]

What were the results?

 

[Azure]

This one?
Test antivirus software for Windows 10 - October 2018

 

[DeepWeb]

Who the heck uses PC Matic?

 

[Cortex]

Who the heck uses PC Matic?

Never heard of it? No ESET at all, looks like Kaspersky & Norton did best overall but full results page not easy to navigate. Most that people on here use did OK.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I don't trust their result and I think it's fake
why? look at WD's Slower copying of files (locally and in a network). It's 1-3%. We all know it's far far worse than that

 

[uduoix]

When does WD copying files slower? Yesterday i copied about 350GB of sitcoms from ext. drive to local drive and speed was between 100 and 150 mb/s. I never had any issues with copying/downloading

 

[roger_m]

@uduoix Try copying a folder with a lot of installers and you'll probably notice a big difference in speed.

 

[uduoix]

ok i get it. So problem is with .exe files?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

ok i get it. So problem is with .exe files?

not only exe but exe is the most noticeable + multiple files vs a large single file
try to compare the speed between WD on and off + monitor task manager during the copying
WD is always the worst

 

[37507]

I don't trust their result and I think it's fake
why? look at WD's Slower copying of files (locally and in a network). It's 1-3%. We all know it's far far worse than that

"I don't agree with the results, so therefore they are fake."

Are you the Malwarebytes user?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

"I don't agree with the results, so therefore they are fake."

Are you the Malwarebytes user?

no, MB is bad but I really don't agree with some of their performance scores
AV-comparatives sometimes do reflect more correctly my experience about performace with AVs but a few of them are not, too

about MB, in general MB is kind of useless but to be honest, their webfilter is incredibly effective, no joke. Plus, MB seems to be one of the first vendors to have signatures for new ransomwares. MB detected them but VT reported MB didn't detect. Other than that, very poor

 

[37507]

no, MB is bad but I really don't agree with some of their performance scores
AV-comparatives sometimes do reflect more correctly my experience about performace with AVs but a few of them are not, too

about MB, in general MB is kind of useless but to be honest, their webfilter is incredibly effective, no joke. Plus, MB seems to be one of the first vendors to have signatures for new ransomwares. MB detected them but VT reported MB didn't detect. Other than that, very poor

But to say that AV-Test results are fake because "your experience" is different is ridiculous. You could probably email AV-Test and ask them for the methodology for testing the performance on Windows Defender.

 

[SumTingWong]

Bitdefender 2019 performance good at idle 400MB.

 

[509322]

But to say that AV-Test results are fake because "your experience" is different is ridiculous. You could probably email AV-Test and ask them for the methodology for testing the performance on Windows Defender.

The only ones being scammed are the publishers that agree to participate in the testing. I get it. The test results are a marketing tool targeting fools because the typical user is only interested in All Green Bars & 5 Stars or Top Choice or Editor's Choice or Product of the Year or whatever the next marketing gimmick is. For the amount of money that the labs charge, I suspect it is a bad deal for at least some.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

But to say that AV-Test results are fake because "your experience" is different is ridiculous. You could probably email AV-Test and ask them for the methodology for testing the performance on Windows Defender.

okay I may take back the word fake but seriously AV-test's tests are only ones that are almost completely opposite to my experience in many products
sometimes I believe they just make up the numbers

MRG and AVC at least have some detail reports and I agree with most of the results, except a few
but for AV-test, there are many problems both protection-wise and performace-wise
you know, I don't care about emailing them because I don't believe I would get an honest answer
performing a personal test/expierence on multiple machines with different hardwares and setups is the best way of evaluating a product
my experience is quite consistent in various machines I can touch

 

[low L!fe]

Kings of protection are Bitdefender Internet Security and Kaspersky Internet Security