AV test labs perform primarily a marketing function.
I agree with that. I've already written that a few times

An AV manufacturer that has a brand built on the market will not risk participating in a test where you can be compromised. Marketing-wise, because it cost him a lot.
We talked in this thread about protection which mainly depends on the results of Real-World tests (tests with many 0-day samples).
Eset took only a Bronze Award in Real-World tests, and Avast took the Gold Award.
Ok. But if you look at the table, Eset has the maximum number of stars in all tests.
Besides, the tests were not every month. And what's more - the tests ended before Eset v18. And despite numerous critical remarks about Eset v17 regarding Real-World Protection (that it is weak), it still won the bronze medal. And Kasperky, which is considered by many to be number 1 in this field, does not have any medal. The same Avast/AVG clone called Norton does not appear in the main awards. Surprisingly, with its poorly rated cloud (Sentra), Avira also has a gold medal in Real-World Protection
Read the Consumer Summary Report 2024 to learn more about the various AV products tested over the year and the high-scoring products in these tests.
www.av-comparatives.org
To end this thread, for years this trio has always been mentioned as the best - Kaspersky, Bitdefender and Eset
I do not know Adrian personally. I do not participate in the forum. I have simply known the AvLab portal for many years. I know when this portal was still in its infancy. I know it before Adrian started playing with tests
