Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and is free to express it.
Open debate is a part of this forum and it certainly has value.
Comodo has problems just like every single other AV I routinely test... consequently, I am continually reporting bugs to Kaspersky, Emsisoft, Comodo, Webroot, etc, etc.
Some reported bugs are fixed. Others are not. And some "bugs" are not really bugs, but rather vulnerabilities that are so arcane and difficult to utilize that no malware author in their right mind would bother... as it would essentially be a complete waste of their time and efforts.
I can tell you from experience testing malwares against AVs, every single one of them will not protect you 100 %; my system routinely gets infected while testing samples.
One can get very high level protection by creating a default-deny\anti-executable system.
What I mean by close is perhaps 98 % protection level.
When one carefully measures all the protection types that are available - the only one that is robust in the face of a never-ending supply of new malware is an anti-executable\default-deny configuration. And the human is the best anti-executable, but software versions help.
The price for such high-level protection is perceived "inconvenience." Constant system reconfiguration is a bit of an interface hassle. Plus automatic updates may not work normally, but that is an easy fix - disable protection, update, then re-enable protection.
The user still has to protect the browser with add-ons and an anti-exploit such as MBAE free. One still needs at least outbound network connection notifications. One still needs an AV to scan user\data folders for files dropped within a few milliseconds by launched but blocked installers\malicious scripts - I have only seen this with AppGuard.
Comodo in its current version has most of this covered - with the exception of anti-exploit for the browser and other browser add-ons. This can mostly be fixed with PeerBlock, AdGuard, uBlock, uMatrix, NoScript, etc.
Comodo is "Old School." By that I mean it is relatively low on automation and high on manual configuration. It is best suited to the user who routinely checks the Windows file system and pays attention to what is installed on the system. Comodo's file verdicts are slow as they are done manually... so their signatures lag behind VT and VT-based AVs. Plus, I am not too sure, but I think user file ratings are not polled and taken into consideration when rating files like Kaspersky and Emsisoft do.
In short, the Comodo package is best suited to the user who is wired to have a high awareness of what is on their system and what it is doing...
However, there is always that malware that comes along that manages to cause problems - if not bypassing or crippling the AV outright. It is just a matter of time.
The point I'm making is this: surf long enough, and far enough, and your system will get bit no matter what you do.
98 % of infections are the result of human behaviors and only 2 % AV failure.
