Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trident" data-source="post: 1100202" data-attributes="member: 99014">According to these labs everyone performed well, but solutions were called “oblivious to malware” by experts here. So who do we trust, the lab that specialises in use-case scenarios or the experts?Whenever it’s convenient for you, you bring the expert videos as evidence and you deny tests and reviews being credible. Then whenever these tests and reviews are convenient evidence, you change your mind and start bringing them up.Not sure what the incorrect things are.1. Is it a fact that everyone, apart from Eset had perfect 100% score on the latest test, including Webroot and QuickHeal?Subquestion: How is Comodo, according to your words from another thread, “consistently demonstrated to be performing better”, when third-tier and unpopular solutions like QuickHeal are getting the same results as Comodo.2. Is it a fact that leaders like Bitdefender, Kaspersky and McAfee, according to the lab result, achieved everything that Comodo did, but did it 60x quicker, minus all the bugs, being up-to-date and in the McAfee case, with 0 setup and poking around?Bitdefender didn’t allow more than 2-3 threats to execute and upon execution, remediated them in &lt;2 seconds. Comodo and Xcitium allowed plethora of malware to be executed and then dwelled roughly a minute on every sample. Malware was working on the OS for a minute, before Comodo takes action.3. Is it a fact that all of the aforementioned leaders do a lot more than Comodo, without entering in unnecessary details?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trident, post: 1100202, member: 99014"] According to these labs everyone performed well, but solutions were called “oblivious to malware” by experts here. So who do we trust, the lab that specialises in use-case scenarios or the experts? Whenever it’s convenient for you, you bring the expert videos as evidence and you deny tests and reviews being credible. Then whenever these tests and reviews are convenient evidence, you change your mind and start bringing them up. Not sure what the incorrect things are. 1. Is it a fact that everyone, apart from Eset had perfect 100% score on the latest test, including Webroot and QuickHeal? Subquestion: How is Comodo, [B]according to your words from another thread[/B], “consistently demonstrated to be performing better”, when third-tier and unpopular solutions like QuickHeal are getting the same results as Comodo. 2. Is it a fact that leaders like Bitdefender, Kaspersky and McAfee, according to the lab result, achieved everything that Comodo did, but did it 60x quicker, minus all the bugs, being up-to-date and in the McAfee case, with 0 setup and poking around? Bitdefender didn’t allow more than 2-3 threats to execute and upon execution, remediated them in <2 seconds. Comodo and Xcitium allowed plethora of malware to be executed and then dwelled roughly a minute on every sample. Malware was working on the OS for a minute, before Comodo takes action. 3. Is it a fact that all of the aforementioned leaders do a lot more than Comodo, without entering in unnecessary details? [/QUOTE]

Verification