I'm using and testing Emsisoft since some tome and agree with the comments above.
Emsisoft's static detection is not as good as it was in the past and in my opinion other AV are better in adding signatures right now.
This is because Emsi uses Bitdefender's engine and signatures too, and Bitdefender is not having his best tome with signatures updates.
As already pointed out, this might, and probably will, change in the future.
Test in the Hub forum has to be analyzed with attention: how fast after posting were samples tested?
What was detected? Why was system declared as infected? Were files encrypted or is malware in memory? How good was BB detection?
Emsi as many other AV doesn't rely only on signatures anymore to detect malware: heuristic, BB, Hips, cloud are the last line of defebce, the one that will/should detect new/still unknown malware.
According to official as hub tests, only few AV really have working BB (see av-comparatives real world tests)...Emsi, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Avast are some of them.
Considering the wholy picture (static +"dynamic" detecyion) Emsi still provides a great protection and version 12 seems to be better than 11 (BB is now better at blocking and deleting detected malware).
I tuned up Emsisoft by deselecting the option to check only files with specific extensions.
On the other side, I believe nowaday no AV alone can protect you from malware, mostly if you are a "heavy clicker" and go "where you shouldn't".
Adblocker, anti-exploit, anti-exe are recommended add-ons as always updated programs, backups..... use of sandbox or VM programs adds additional security against unwanted changes to your system.
