Can we trust independent anti virus testers? Where to get honest reviews?

[THpubs]

For years I have been relying on sites like Av-Test to pick a good Anti Virus. Recently, I read some threads over hear and saw a totally different world. People recommending different anti virus suits (apart from the big ones like Kaspersky and Bitdefender). People pointing out Windows 10 compatibility issues with Kaspersky and possibly others...

So, my question is, how and where can we get hones reviews on security suits?

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

So AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, Virus Bulletin and all those actually receive money for placing products higher. This means that sometimes, and occasionally, a company like Bitdefender might pay say $50 to boost its ranking by 1%. Not much, but enough to make a difference.

If you go to Reviews tab in MalwareTips, you can view some honest, nonprofit reviews made by our members. You can also see security tests caught on video.

The rule of thumb I have is to trust non-videotaped results with a grain of salt because we don't know whether the reviewer was paid to make a biased review, for example sometimes pc magazines like PC Mag sometimes do this. I don't trust PC Mag for that purpose, although you can use it to see which security products are legitimate and which are rogue.

 

[THpubs]

So AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, Virus Bulletin and all those actually receive money for placing products higher. This means that sometimes, and occasionally, a company like Bitdefender might pay say $50 to boost its ranking by 1%. Not much, but enough to make a difference.

If you go to Reviews tab in MalwareTips, you can view some honest, nonprofit reviews made by our members. You can also see security tests caught on video.

The rule of thumb I have is to trust non-videotaped results with a grain of salt because we don't know whether the reviewer was paid to make a biased review, for example sometimes pc magazines like PC Mag sometimes do this. I don't trust PC Mag for that purpose, although you can use it to see which security products are legitimate and which are rogue.

Great! I will look into them! The problem is, normal users don't do indepth testing like bombarding the security app with various viruses and even test their inner workings. Is there anyplace that we can get those reviews?

 

[hjlbx]

For years I have been relying on sites like Av-Test to pick a good Anti Virus. Recently, I read some threads over hear and saw a totally different world. People recommending different anti virus suits (apart from the big ones like Kaspersky and Bitdefender). People pointing out Windows 10 compatibility issues with Kaspersky and possibly others...

So, my question is, how and where can we get hones reviews on security suits?

You can only decide what is best AV for your specific system after installing it and using it for a while. The AV test lab performance results do not apply to every single system in existence; it only applies to the specific systems they used to test the performance of the AV under the test conditions they used.

Protection wise, they use default settings. So the results are generally not an indicator of an AV's maximum protections.

As a general guideline though, the protection scores are accurate for the sample set and test conditions. AV-Comparatives generally uses a slightly outdated browser and other softs to see if system is compromised.

It irks me to no end that AV impact on system is never what I see on my specific system almost all AVs. There is almost never agreement with the AV test lab performance results. Protection is a much more tricky item that depends upon too many variables.

The best way to select an AV in order of importance:

1. Does it function well on your specific system; cause slow boot, conflict, break softs ?
2. Can you figure out how to use it ?
3. Does it offer reasonably good base-line protection according to labs and other users ?

 

[nsm0220]

You can only decide what is best AV for your specific system after installing it and using it for a while. The AV test lab performance results do not apply to every single system in existence; it only applies to the specific systems they used to test the performance of the AV under the test conditions they used.

Protection wise, they use default settings. So the results are generally not an indicator of an AV's maximum protections.

As a general guideline though, the protection scores are accurate for the sample set and test conditions. AV-Comparatives generally uses a slightly outdated browser and other softs to see if system is compromised.

It irks me to no end that AV impact on system is never what I see on my specific system almost all AVs. There is almost never agreement with the AV test lab performance results. Protection is a much more tricky item that depends upon too many variables.

The best way to select an AV in order of importance:

1. Does it function well on your specific system; cause slow boot, conflict, break softs ?
2. Can you figure out how to use it ?
3. Does it offer reasonably good base-line protection according to labs and other users ?

My rules of any AV i test is the following:
1.Is the RAM and CPU usage?
2.Does it have a zero day protection?
3.How does the AV protect me while im surfing on the web?
4.How does the av do with a pack malware and how many can it find within that folder?
5.Can its zero day protection be good enough to stop malware from entering into important Windows files and folders like system 32?
6.Did the av leave behied a clean pc or a pc with malware everywhere after the test?

 

[hjlbx]

Great! I will look into them! The problem is, normal users don't do indepth testing like bombarding the security app with various viruses and even test their inner workings. Is there anyplace that we can get those reviews?

In my reviews I'm pretty harsh on security softs...

What I think, you might think otherwise. That is why it is best to try various security softs out. It's a monumental pain due to time and effort required, but (theoretically) end result will be best overall user experience (and not absolute highest protection).

Willingness to compromise helps too...

 

[kiric96]

as others members stated, every AV behaves different in every machine, the best you can do is to try by yourself and then decide, as an example most of the people here will complain about the fact that bitdefender has some bug, i might say it is true but for me is not a problem.... buying an AV is like going to a mall to buy shoes, at the first glance you will see a lot of models and prices, but it doesnt mean that since a product is expensive or has more features it will fit your requeriments, then you have to ask yourself, what you need and what type of user you are, i know people that use winows defender and they can tell you that they haven suffer any infection in ages, if you ask me windows defender lacks a lot of things, but for some is just okay, in the other hand for example kaspersky, it has a lot of features but is non sense to me ´cuz in first place i dont know how to set up the whole product and worse i dont need features like banking protection, email protection and so on.

for performance please remember that every system is differnt, in my case avast will slow down things while opening folders and AVG too, then bitdefender for me is okay, it is true that it has some bugs but it wont bother me too much.. so, then again is your decisio.

 

[jamescv7]

Can we trust them?

That's depends, its like you are watching a News TV Channel which suffers a lot of biased and sensationalism from the results and conclusion.

Methodology of the test is always differ from organizations and users basis. Always compare with many sides and angles.

User test reviews are always accurate as possible since its undergone wide variety of samples from those undetectable up to annoying scripts/ malware/viruses.

+ The design for user reviews are to find holes as to encourage the developers to improve the products whereas some testing organizations doesn't provide much more detailed.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Simple rule when choosing AVs:

"Trust no one but what your system say"

And to hear what your system say , u have to try...

 

[rebel4life]

woow so wise umbra we not worthy we not worthy

 

[omidomi]

infact we can 't trust them fully
but seeing their result is usefull

 

[cruelsister]

The validity of a user test is directly proportional to the nastiness as well as the age of the samples used. Honestly there isn't any way for a viewer to determine this without it being stated by the reviewer.

 

[LabZero]

Why AV vendors entrust their products to Independent Labs Test ?
Because this is a simple way based on marketing and business and it is hard to say how these independent tests are.
You must have a good knowledge to figure out what is true and what is false and you should not only read the final score because the average user often only sees this, choosing an antivirus or another: that's wrong.
Personally I don't consider these tests reliable but I try the antivirus on my machine and I choose it according to my needs.

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

Here's my AV test:
If it screws up your machine loads more times than malware does - try one that doesn't.
If your AV and all it's bits can't be removed by the Windows uninstaller - get one than can be removed by a simple uninstaller.
I've had it with Windows operating systems and have switched to one that doesn't need any AV, nor can one be installed on it.
What a relief.

 

[Kate_L]

Short answer is NO, I do my own tests.

People must keep in mind that Detection != Protection

 

[davetenay]

I'm not sure if we can trust them or not. When I see, for example, products like Panda or Avira scoring 100% for some months in a raw both in Av comparatives and Av-test (the main antivirus tester organizations), I highly doubt it is possible. Especially when many online reviews seem to prove that a lot of malware samples get through...

 

[Deleted member 178]

I trust no tests unless i see all the settings made for the procedure.

Easy to find samples that fit the "wanted" results...or "adjusting" the software for a wanted result...

 

[LabZero]

Too many times I've seen 100% rating AV and ... resoundingly fail in our Hub.

 

[nsm0220]

Too many times I've seen 100% rating AV and ... resoundingly fail in our Hub.

That's true look what happen to panda and a few others that claim they can protect you system, when in truth they are all talk and no bite.

In my reviews I'm pretty harsh on security softs...

What I think, you might think otherwise. That is why it is best to try various security softs out. It's a monumental pain due to time and effort required, but (theoretically) end result will be best overall user experience (and not absolute highest protection).

Willingness to compromise helps too...

When i do my reviews, im harsh to AVs as well.

 

[Andytay70]

i would rather trust reviews on here than any other site plus cruelsister does great tests too.