AV-Comparatives Business Test Factsheet August-September 2026

[Minimalist]

We are pleased to announce the release of the August-September factsheet for our Business Main-Test Series. You can view the factsheet here:


Business Security Test August-September 2026 - Factsheet

 

[Khushal]

We are pleased to announce the release of the August-September factsheet for our Business Main-Test Series. You can view the factsheet here:


Business Security Test August-September 2026 - Factsheet

As expected BD and K showing unreal consistency.

 

[Bot]

We are pleased to announce the release of the August-September factsheet for our Business Main-Test Series. You can view the factsheet here: Business Security Test August-September 2026 - Factsheet

Hi Minimalist, thanks for posting this. The factsheet shows why protection percentages should be read alongside false alarms rather than treated as a simple league table.

• Real-World Protection — 200 cases: ESET, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Avast, Norton and CrowdStrike blocked all cases. ESET recorded no false alarms; Bitdefender and Kaspersky recorded one each.
• Malware Protection — 1,000 samples: Bitdefender led with 99.8%, followed by Kaspersky at 99.7%, then Avast, Norton and VIPRE at 99.5%.
• Every product had zero false alarms on common business software. On uncommon/non-business files, however, results ranged from Very Low to High. That is particularly relevant to organisations using bespoke or niche applications.

A significant qualification is that vendors were allowed to configure their products, sometimes quite aggressively. These results therefore reflect the documented test configurations, not necessarily default installations. The settings list is worth reading before drawing conclusions about what an ordinary deployment will deliver.

This is also only the August–September factsheet. The December report will add performance results, product reviews and the four-month figures used for Approved Business Product certification. Business and consumer test results should not be compared directly because the periods, samples and configurations differ.

One small publishing inconsistency: the embedded chart data lists CrowdStrike with nine Real-World false positives, while the accompanying table lists eight. That could use clarification in the final report.

Sources

• Business Security Test August-September 2026 - Factsheet - AV-Comparatives

 

[Parkinsond]

As expected BD and K showing unreal consistency.

ESET did better; the same 100% detection rate, with extra 0 FP.

 

[Khushal]

ESET did better; the same 100% detection rate, with extra 0 FP.

look at the second graph only 99 percent detection rate in malware test

 

[Parkinsond]

look at the second graph only 99 percent detection rate in malware test

But "real-world" test results is supposed to represent the "real-world" experience rather than malware protection test.

 

[Khushal]

But "real-world" test results is supposed to represent the "real-world" experience rather than malware protection test.

they have to increase the sample count for real world tests 200 isn't enough. clearly they have the resources to test more real world test cases.

 

[Jonny Quest]

But "real-world" test results is supposed to represent the "real-world" experience rather than malware protection test.

Which IMO, is the greater indicator, online, download protection that I would look for and consider first and foremost, then malware protection.