"Qihoo is an X-Factor player in the market"
What does that even mean?
If you want to avoid any company that got dinged for how it used personal information, you'd have to leave your computer off, close all of your money and credit accounts, change your name and address.
"Personal" information is often misconstrued from personally "identifiable" information (PII) to analytics. PII, I care. Analytics, I don't--of course they're capturing your habits..that information has value and if that gets me free stuff, I'm fine with it. I use Google, Chrome, Android...of course I'm being analyticsysed...but I mitigate that with blockers anyway and for performance, not anonymity. I don't care if they know user#867-5309 browsed these sites, runs these programs, etc. Big Data = Big Brother.
The part that matters: Qihoo was acing the AV tests until the he said/she said pettiness. Anyone who actually reads AV tests isn't going to use the default configuration anyway!
My little scanning test today has Qihoo on top, besting Avast (whom I was rooting for) and Comodo. I've switched my desktop and laptop to Win10 (10130) and I'm evaluating available free security solutions.
Thanks to
@SkyboundSteven for providing collections easy to download; I used:
mega.co.nz/#!M1g1jJIR!6FYbSSFUFF99Qythxq7V3U-dqTaO-g0GA_WzfmTwD6w
and
https://mega.co.nz/#F!hogT2RBZ!sKoVvGkAOkhiNrYI7OXuGw
on a Hyper-V VM running the same Win10 (10130). I also have Malwarebytes Antimalware Premium and Zemana (lifetime) installed. The tested software was downloaded/installed/updated today.
I extracted all 922 files and de-duplicated them (leaving 698 files), installed the software to be tested, set options to their maximum, disabled real-time protection, then performed a scan on the malware folder with a right-click and selected delete on all positives. Next I ran MBAM then ran a Zemana scan to see what the other engines combined found to pretty much get the maximum detectable (most weren't detected; I'm not sure if every single file is malicious or if some are legitimate files that are part of a malicious package) to get what would have been left had I run the tested product with MBAM.
Results
Avira: not compatible with Win10; permissions issues
Baidu: not compatible with Win10; it didn't detect anything, not even EICAR
Panda: not compatible with Win10; Microsoft blocks it
One could argue that "Win10 isn't released yet" but I disagree: Anyone can download and install it from Microsoft; therefore it is released and nomenclature ("preview", "beta", "early" means nothing as it pertains to release, only to stability/expectations). If a security company isn't on the ball with OS software, I have to wonder if they're on the ball with the even more rapidly-changing malicious software--so credit to Avast, Comodo, Qihoo for that and I'll be choosing one of these for my file scanner solution.
Avast removed 119 threats, then MBAM removed 15 items, leaving Zemana to find 29 items
Comodo removed 111 threats, then MBAM removed 20 items, leaving Zemana to find 32 items
Qihoo removed 170 threats, then MBAM found 1 item, leaving Zemana to find 4 items
As far as file-detection goes, one could say
not running Qihoo 360 isn't safe.