Kaspersky vs Avast: THE SHOCKING Truth Revealed! Don't Buy Antivirus Until You See This!
- Thread starter Parkinsond
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
We've said it time and time again: using scripts or tools to perform a “gangbang” test is completely useless!
The antivirus engine does not have time to process everything. We see this when Kaspersky lets ScreenConnect through even though the publisher has detected it.
Worse still, Kaspersky's PDM:Win32.Bazon.a detections also reflect what I am saying, often detecting when we try to run a file known to be malicious by Kaspersky.
And above all: Why compare the free version of Avast! with the paid version of Kaspersky? Wouldn't Avast Premium have been better?
The antivirus engine does not have time to process everything. We see this when Kaspersky lets ScreenConnect through even though the publisher has detected it.
Worse still, Kaspersky's PDM:Win32.Bazon.a detections also reflect what I am saying, often detecting when we try to run a file known to be malicious by Kaspersky.
And above all: Why compare the free version of Avast! with the paid version of Kaspersky? Wouldn't Avast Premium have been better?
It is in favor of Avast, not the reverse, its free version is on par with a paid version of K.
Hated B for the High RAM usage and full updates?
and false positive detections, and not honoring exclusions, and forced "show files extensions", and more.
Avast better . It is not the first test where I see Avast surpassing Kaspersky. Gen is very powerful, it's just a matter of time. There are 4 merged companies, Avira - Avast - Avg - Norton.
Also AVG acquired Norman, Norton acquired BullGuard.
Gen Digital is a powerhouse.
But in terms of detection, I still put my trust in Kaspersky.
Yes, uBlock blocks that URL using HaGeZi's Ultimate filter list, which is nothing new to me.
Anything with a title like that does not deserve even 1 second of my attention. This what I call Bullshit clickbait that requires stupid titles since it contains no real informationGood job Avast
Actually this test results are in alignment with MT own members test results, so I would consider it as valid, regardless of the "commercial" title.
App Review - Shadowra's Big Comparative - Episode 1 : Free Antivirus
In this video, we compare 8 free antivirus programs. The aim is to see how effective they are, and rank them from worst to best. Please note: - the antiviruses are already ranked in the video, I've taken into account Web blocking, the reaction to an attack, my malware pack and how the...
malwaretips.com
Meanwhile, tests with odd results (deviating from the MT community members feedback), I might ignore, whatever elegant is the logo of the test lab.
I am just a jaded old man with no patience for sensationalized titles. Life is already as stressful as it is without the need to create artificial pressure. It's like showing up to a fortune 100 CEO job with a neck tattoo. Sure you can be the most brilliant individual ever, the question is in your life choices.Actually this test results are in alignment with MT own members test results, so I would consider it as valid, regardless of the "commercial" title.
App Review - Shadowra's Big Comparative - Episode 1 : Free Antivirus
In this video, we compare 8 free antivirus programs. The aim is to see how effective they are, and rank them from worst to best. Please note: - the antiviruses are already ranked in the video, I've taken into account Web blocking, the reaction to an attack, my malware pack and how the...
Meanwhile, tests with odd results (deviating from the MT community members feedback), I might ignore, whatever elegant is the logo of the test lab.
I like to follow all available sources of data, even those which look absurd, in order to create a more realistic opinion about the program.
Of course they are ranked according to reliability.
Let's assume that this test is valid and the result is statistically significant. What is the conclusion?
Detection difference on the 6-day-old samples < 1/111
Such imprecise inequality is true for any two popular AVs, so it will not be helpful when choosing an AV.
The result is very imprecise compared to well-known tests:
Detection difference on the 6-day-old samples < Detection difference on the 1-day-old samples < 0.25/100
Maybe I should change the name of the thread below to "Shocking results in Real-World tests."
malwaretips.com
From known tests, it follows a four times better inequality, even if the samples were much fresher.
I think that a more reliable detection difference for 6-day-old samples would probably be less than 1/1000 instead of 1/111.
Detection difference on the 6-day-old samples < 1/111
Such imprecise inequality is true for any two popular AVs, so it will not be helpful when choosing an AV.
The result is very imprecise compared to well-known tests:
Detection difference on the 6-day-old samples < Detection difference on the 1-day-old samples < 0.25/100
Maybe I should change the name of the thread below to "Shocking results in Real-World tests."
The best Home AV protection 2021-2022
Real-World tests include fresh web-originated samples. Malware Protection tests include older samples (several days old) usually delivered via USB drives or network drives. Real-World Triathlon 2021-2022: SE Labs, AV-Comparatives, AV-Test (7548 samples in 24 tests) -------------------Missed...
malwaretips.com
From known tests, it follows a four times better inequality, even if the samples were much fresher.
I think that a more reliable detection difference for 6-day-old samples would probably be less than 1/1000 instead of 1/111.
Last edited:
Detection difference is minimal in most of tests; AVC real-world test difference between three levels is one missed sample for each level; does not matter unless I get exposed to thousands of threats every day.
I like tweaked MD and I believe it is solid.
My conclusion is that this video can be a useful presentation (not a real test), which shows the already known truth:
The differences in the detection of popular AVs are very small.
The differences in the detection of popular AVs are very small.
It is funny that the very imprecise inequality based on this video can be more precise for an in-the-wild scenario:
Detection difference on in-the-wild active samples < 1/111
This would be a truly shocking test, but it could be done only by knowing the true real-time data gathered by AV vendors.
Detection difference on in-the-wild active samples < 1/111
This would be a truly shocking test, but it could be done only by knowing the true real-time data gathered by AV vendors.
Theoretical evaluation is often overlooked. Without theoretical evaluation, it’s difficult to decide what needs to be tested and how.
You may also like...
-
Avira vs Panda Dome: The Shocking Truth You Need to See!- Started by NB InfoTech
- Replies: 21
-
-
Kaspersky Premium vs McAfee Advanced
- Started by Shadowra
- Replies: 87
-
-
AVG Antivirus – Solid Free Option or Premium Upsell Trap?- Started by Bot
- Replies: 1