Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter

I found this video, quite interesting. It was made on Nov 23, 2016
There was a little problem during the review with SAP. It was not properly set up initially but was fixed later

Version:
HitmanPro: 3.7.15 build 281
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware: 2.2.1.1043
SecureAPlus: v4.4.1
Zemana: 2.60.2.1

Result:
 
Last edited:
W

Wave

Sorry but this thread is laughable - not because of @Evjl's Rain - due to the results for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (compared to the other products)... It's actually amusing and I'm finding it hilarious. Of course that doesn't mean MBAM is a bad product based on one test because of all the samples out there (and for sure they have a good detection with other samples and every product has a good/bad day), but they really do under-perform these days than how they used to perform IMO... I honestly think that the glow MBAM has has been gone for a long time, I'd pick HitmanPro or Zemana Anti-Malware over MBAM any day nowadays.

No disrespect to them, but they release the 3.0 and act like it can replace existing security solutions (AV products), but I don't think they are anywhere near to this level...
 
W

Wave

Great job malwarebytes! but from now you can't compare malwarebytes with other anti-malware because version 3 give full protection not just malware protection.
You can still compare it depending on the type of test. If you are performing a static scanning test then you can compare the static detection results (e.g. on-demand scanning for a folder containing malicious samples), however with dynamic testing then it may not work properly due to the comparison of protection components for dynamic protection (like you said, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware has much more).

It also needs to be taken into account that Malwarebytes do not use other peoples engines, but only their in-house engine, which is much trickier to do... Less research, less resources, harder maintenance (keep up with new malicious techniques, etc.). They aren't that bad, but they are not as good as their image makes out, either.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Zemana are so weak ???
no zemana did the best in this detection test of second opinion scanners
SecureAPlus is a full product, not a second opinion scanner

If we enable zemana's pandora the detection rate after executing those malwares will be definitely higher

SecureAPlus uses a lot of engines, more than the others, so it has very high detection rate as expected
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Great job malwarebytes! but from now you can't compare malwarebytes with other anti-malware because version 3 give full protection not just malware protection.
sadly, MB3 performs just slightly better than MBAM 2
this is the test from @safe1st, published a week ago, which showed that MB3 had lower detection rate than windows defender and the realtime protection of MB3 was even weaker than its static scan. After the test, he performed a full scan again with MB3 and it detected a few more malwares while during the dynamic test, MB3 did block them
 

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
As always an assumption which is a fact where the three scanners contain more than one engine whereas to MBAM.

So the test clearly shows where the winner will be the one contains multi engines all day long, thus much better for second opinion scanning purpose.
 
Top