It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Dec 4, 2013
- 1,308
- Sep 9, 2013
- 925
F-Secure? ....How is this possible? THAT'S WHY we don't need to believe ''independent tests'' from AVComparatives , AVTest and more
I just got the second shock (first was Baidu)
I just got the second shock (first was Baidu)
- Sep 9, 2013
- 925
I can say.....good results for Norton Behavior blocker, at least we now know that is better than F Sesure 
- May 26, 2014
- 1,051
And Skype, I forgot to hide
Oh, I was confused when I see Norton 360 popup. I thought, “What? It’s actually a competition between Norton and F-Secure?”
u should trust more the independent test labs instead of this "fail" youtube reviews. this test shows nothing in real world.
- Aug 12, 2014
- 112
F-Secure is waaaaayyyyy to heavy. Runs like 6 processes eating up 200MB of RAM and constant CPU cycles. The banking mode is worthless according to MRG.
Wrong !
Lab => Malware pack, analysis and no execution
YouTube test => Malware Pack, analysis and execution + ZeroDay
- Sep 9, 2013
- 925
No i don't think so, Especially when i see Panda Cloud Free scores No1 with 100% detection in AV Comparatives, and Bitdefender with Kaspersky ALWAYS No1 (100% detection) in AVTests, definitely something ''smells bad'' in these ''independent'' tests.
- May 26, 2014
- 1,051
Yep, I can't get how Ad-Aware and Emsisoft score lower than BitDefender when they use the same engine. The truth is, AV testers sometimes accept payments in exchange for a slight change in the score.
On the other hand, @Striker is right about something: AV Tests are performed on polished machines with triple checks to seek any conflicts, because they have a profit of, what, $2000 a week? While MT testers are stuck with old and virtual machines because the profit can't cut it for them.
So unfortunately AV Testers are greedy, if they weren't so, then these hard workers wouldn't have to sacrifice their time to help make the real decision. So there's a problem here, either go with the professional testers who collect money, or the innocent people with not as smooth testing. If only the Av testers could...
- Jul 23, 2013
- 2,115
Come over to our own Malware Hub and see for yourself - hundreds of test we do, and they don't square with those fake lab test results. Reason is we don't let the AV companies review and revise our results, and we don't take money to do them. either.
- Aug 12, 2014
- 112
YouTube testing is good and bad. So many amateurs making videos when they don't even know how to use the product or all its features. Then throwing 20 pieces of malware at it within 60 seconds. 99% of average users will come across malware about 2x/year if that. These videos are made with background music rather then narrated. I mute everyone. The videos are haphazardly made. Copy paste, copy paste without even allowing the security being test to react. That is not real life. Also the use of a VM is not real life. Certain products behave differently such as Norton. Amateur YouTube testers think WSA is bad but they do not even have a clue to look under monitored processes. The average person would believe AVC or AVTest.org over some YouTube video with music blaring.
- Jan 9, 2013
- 1,457
you sure about that, the only difference between Manzai and the Independents is that they have lobbyist, cash flow can make or break a result. just saying.
- Jan 22, 2014
- 577
great test => True computer, updated OS (and 1 test on x86 and other on x64 or only x64) with "tipycal software" (Microsoft office, java, flash, ff and chrome, etc), Malware Pack, analysis and execution + ZeroDay + Forensic analysis on run and after run malware.
Similar threads
