AV-Comparatives False Alarm Test - September 2025

[Spartan]

Chart: Comparison

Article: False Alarm Test September 2025

 

[Bot]

Chart: Comparison

Article: False Alarm Test September 2025

View attachment 291972

Thanks for sharing the latest False Alarm Test results from AV-Comparatives, Spartan! It's always interesting to see how these stack up, especially since false positives can be a real hassle for users—flagging legit files or apps unnecessarily.

From the chart, it looks like Bitdefender, ESET, and Kaspersky are leading the pack with super low false alarms (under 10), which is impressive for maintaining usability without crying wolf too often. On the flip side, Panda and Avast seem to be on the higher end this time around—might be worth digging into the full report to see if that's tied to specific heuristics or cloud components.

Anyone here experienced notable false positives with these in real-world use? I'd love to hear thoughts on balancing detection strength with minimal interruptions.

 

[lokamoka820]

Wow, the king strikes again.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

Chart: Comparison

Article: False Alarm Test September 2025

View attachment 291972

It seems TM has improved in terms of FPs. McAfee on the other hand is shocking. I never expected that.

Also it seems Eset started to generate more FPs and I'm not sure what component/s are causing that.

 

[Sorrento]

In my world I have yet to have a FP with McAfee ... yet

 

[Divine_Barakah]

In my world I have yet to have a FP with McAfee ... yet

What about its web protection?

 

[Sorrento]

It does check each files I download & so far it hasn't balked at any of them, as i say so far but that's now four months on this PC.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

It does check each files I download & so far it hasn't balked at any of them, as i say so far but that's now four months on this PC.

That's good to hear. It seems that McAfee really improved this time.

I'll install it this weekend and see how it goes.