Comodo AV vs Avira vs 21390 malwares

[Deleted member 178]

Many visitors asked me which is Comodo’s Antivirus 2012 (5.8) detection rate and how good it is to prevent an infection.

So I decided to do a complete and complex test in order to evaluate the detection of this product using a total of 21.390 viruses between the 18th of October to 24th of October, 2011.

I have chosen Avira Antivirus Free 2012 for comparison, testing it on the same malware set.
Why this product? Because it has the best detection (according to AV-Comparatives) among single-engine products and in addition these are both free software.

How did I conducted this test?
I set both products to use the best settings for maximum detection (scan all files, heuristics on the maximum

level) and during a week time, I scanned a set of malwares.
Scanning evaluated immediate detection of both products, so I tested them no later than 48H after I had found all

the malwares I used for a test in a specific day.

Which was the final result?

Comodo – 83.94% detection
Avira – 82.98% detection
For additional details, I will post below the specific detection rate day by day:

October 18:
Initial files – 3073
Avira – 720 remaining (76.5% detection)
Comodo – 782 remaining (74.55% detection)

October 19:
Initial files – 3078
Avira – the remaining 733 (76.18% detection)
Comodo – 487 remaining (84.17% detection)

October 20:
Initial files – 3021
Avira – 389 remaining (87.12% detection)
Comodo – 281 remaining (90.69% detection)

October 21:
Initial files – 3045
Avira – 494 remaining (83.77% detection)
Comodo – remaining 567 (81.37% detection)

October 22:
Initial files – 3030
Avira – 562 remaining (81.45% detection)
Comodo – 583 remaining (80.75% detection)

October 23:
Initial files – 3118
Avira – 402 remaining (87.10%)
Comodo – 311 remaining (90.02%)

October 24:
Initial files – 3025
Avira – 340 remaining (88.76%)
Comodo – 429 remaining (85.81%)

Finally, we evaluated the heuristic detection for Comodo Antivirus 5.8 (2012).

The product used the signatures it had on the 27th of October 2011. We used new malware appeared between the 2nd of November to 4th of November 2011, a total of 9150 infected files.

Proactive detection was was 4274 (46.71%), a good result, but there is room for improvement, considering that a very good heuristic detection starts from 50%.

Comodo currently have about 13 million malware signatures in its database, with over 60.000 new detection added daily.

If you encounter some undetected malwares or a FP (False Positive alert), send the file to Comodo using the form below:

http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/submit.php

Link: http://www.faravirusi.com/2011/11/06/avira-antivirus-free-2012-vs-comodo-antivirus-2012-test-al-detectiei-by-faravirusi-com/

.................................................................................

 

[McLovin]

They were seriously put to the test.

 

[moonshine]

Well it's good to see that Comodo AV is still keeping up a good detection rate.

 

[jamescv7]

Good to see that both AV were really neck to neck on detection rates percentage. A tough test there.

 

[win7holic]

CAV only difference 0.96% from avira
good for CAV.

 

[ocsi]

A very useful test! CIS is are better and better.

 

[moonshine]

Good to see that Comodo's finally back in the game of Detection Rates!

 

[House_maniac]

great to see that comodo keeps improving

 

[MrExplorer]

Now i am not confused i would be using CIS 5.12

 

[spywar]

Thanks please guys can you imagine the final detection rate of CIS including valkyrie ? .....
Comodo is improving everydays...

 

[Amiga500]

Thanks please guys can you imagine the final detection rate of CIS including valkyrie ? .....
Comodo is improving everydays...

Thats really good to see.Comodo is getting better.:yahoo:

 

[Littlebits]

The detection rate test looks suspicious. Where can you download these samples and check them yourself?

For Comodo to have only – 83.94% detection and Avira only – 82.98% detection, they must have been using some uncommon malware samples that are not widespread. MSE has a better detection rate then that for common widespread malware.

I simply don't believe the results since I can't test the malware samples myself. It says nothing about what kind of samples they used or if either one detected false positives.

Thanks.

 

[Amiga500]

Personally i find these tests absolutely absurd.
Who on gods earth is ever going to come across thousands of malwares in their computing life...?

I have only ever come across half a dozen malwares in a real world usage scenario.
These tests are pointless.
If your average computer user is coming across this sort of malware then they need to re-evaluate their browsing habits.

 

[Binload]

I do agree with this statement but the test does show how the software acts, which can be informative.

basically user should extract the information that he or she is interested.