Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
Best AVs and Worst AVs in Behavioral Health
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IceMan7" data-source="post: 1121362" data-attributes="member: 121355"><p>The Av-Test test and others are not good tests. Each of these labs has some guidelines or agrees with the participants on what tests are performed. If a solution is not certain and does not want to come out badly, it does not participate. It has been like this for years.</p><p>AV Test used to (I do not know if it has changed) give a better AV score when it let in at least 1 sample, than what it detected 100% but had more false positives. In addition, a better score was given for a solution that did most of the work itself without user intervention - for example, confirming the removal of a sample.</p><p></p><p>On the web (mainly on YT) you can see many tests where Avast does not reach the level of Kaspersky or Bitdefender in behavioral protection. You only need to look at the Shadowra tests here, where Norton (a clone of Avast, AVG and probably soon Avira because it is the same family) does not have this level either. The same conclusions can be drawn about Avira. This can be seen even in the tests of Fsecure, which is a clone of Avira and does not achieve such good results when it had DeepGuard</p><p>In marketing, every AV flexes its muscles, shows what great solutions it has.</p><p></p><p>I would have written more quickly that Eset is closer to BD and Kaspersky, because it did tests with Shadowra, and you can also see on YT that Eset is neck and neck with BD and Kaspersky (I even saw a test where it beat Kaspersky).</p><p>But this is also just a conclusion. Eset seems promising, I'm waiting for more tests to be able to write that it is at the level or close to BD.. For now, Eset boasts in its advertising leaflets how good it is. Tests will show it</p><p></p><p>Especially since 9/10 of the testers on YT reveal in the comments that despite the great results of Kaspersky and Bitdefender, they use Eset on their computers. Eset also has Shadowra <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite116" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> So for some reason they use Eset? But why <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite116" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />?</p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite132" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure :unsure:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":unsure:" /></p><p></p><p>Behavioral protection is not just marketing. Bitdefender (BD) and Kaspersky have been showing for years how strong they are when tested by running malicious samples. Now others have to prove themselves in this area to write/say that they are equally or similarly strong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IceMan7, post: 1121362, member: 121355"] The Av-Test test and others are not good tests. Each of these labs has some guidelines or agrees with the participants on what tests are performed. If a solution is not certain and does not want to come out badly, it does not participate. It has been like this for years. AV Test used to (I do not know if it has changed) give a better AV score when it let in at least 1 sample, than what it detected 100% but had more false positives. In addition, a better score was given for a solution that did most of the work itself without user intervention - for example, confirming the removal of a sample. On the web (mainly on YT) you can see many tests where Avast does not reach the level of Kaspersky or Bitdefender in behavioral protection. You only need to look at the Shadowra tests here, where Norton (a clone of Avast, AVG and probably soon Avira because it is the same family) does not have this level either. The same conclusions can be drawn about Avira. This can be seen even in the tests of Fsecure, which is a clone of Avira and does not achieve such good results when it had DeepGuard In marketing, every AV flexes its muscles, shows what great solutions it has. I would have written more quickly that Eset is closer to BD and Kaspersky, because it did tests with Shadowra, and you can also see on YT that Eset is neck and neck with BD and Kaspersky (I even saw a test where it beat Kaspersky). But this is also just a conclusion. Eset seems promising, I'm waiting for more tests to be able to write that it is at the level or close to BD.. For now, Eset boasts in its advertising leaflets how good it is. Tests will show it Especially since 9/10 of the testers on YT reveal in the comments that despite the great results of Kaspersky and Bitdefender, they use Eset on their computers. Eset also has Shadowra :D So for some reason they use Eset? But why :D? :unsure: Behavioral protection is not just marketing. Bitdefender (BD) and Kaspersky have been showing for years how strong they are when tested by running malicious samples. Now others have to prove themselves in this area to write/say that they are equally or similarly strong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
