Yes, your right, now i found it, its more compatibility than detection... it said that all 3rd company antivirus were detected bugs (project Zero by Google) that can be exploited... i remembered the title but not the content of the news (sry for bad english)@Elpibe, Compatibility may be the more accurate term than 'best' in your concerns. Although I've not graduated to the level of malware tester (yet) my impressions testing through personal use is that Windows Defender continues to be a significantly compatible option which may have more to do with it's light integrated performance than it's detection/protection results.
MalwareTips AV Test [March 2017]
- Thread starter BoraMurdar
- Start date
Excellent work @BoraMurdar!
Thank you for collecting all that data and putting these graphs together
Also Kudos to our Malware Hunters who serve us with plenty of fresh malware for testing each day
Thank you for collecting all that data and putting these graphs together
Also Kudos to our Malware Hunters who serve us with plenty of fresh malware for testing each day
Nice results! A little disappointed that Avast didn't do a little better. 
Btw, were all the samples not detected by the AV SUDed? I feel like in the long run that would be a good idea..
Btw, were all the samples not detected by the AV SUDed? I feel like in the long run that would be a good idea..
Avast has very good cloud system, signatures are added fast, so in the real world it would achieve a much better result. And there is always a room for tweaks for strengthening the security.Nice results! A little disappointed that Avast didn't do a little better.
it's a shame the long fully protected streak had to end with an infected one for Kaspersky.
- Apr 28, 2015
- 9,397
- 1
- 84,815
- 8,389
Impressive methodology, well if any issues occur then definitely goes on the AV itself.
Considering the fact where test conducted on a clean state system, pre-defined configuration and fully updated signatures.
Let the protection component do the rest and where results are actually unique and consistent.
Considering the fact where test conducted on a clean state system, pre-defined configuration and fully updated signatures.
Let the protection component do the rest and where results are actually unique and consistent.
thnx for your good work @BoraMurdar
But these results are not acceptable... we can't compare Kaspersky Total Security and Bitdefender free in one graphical chart
I think it's not fair!
there is Ransomware Protection in Bitdefender paid versions but it's not available in free version
Bitdefender free tested vs ransomware's and after that, we got this->(24771) but at the same time, those ransomware's tested vs Kaspersky total security.
I believe if they test BitDefender paid version vs same malware's results will change
I'm not Bitdefender user
apologize for my eng mistakes: -)
But these results are not acceptable
... we can't compare Kaspersky Total Security and Bitdefender free in one graphical chartI think it's not fair!
there is Ransomware Protection in Bitdefender paid versions but it's not available in free version
Bitdefender free tested vs ransomware's and after that, we got this->(24771) but at the same time, those ransomware's tested vs Kaspersky total security.
I believe if they test BitDefender paid version vs same malware's results will change
I'm not Bitdefender user
apologize for my eng mistakes: -)
Last edited:
Great to see such good results! Well done team!
Nice work!
Wouldn't the results for Kaspersky be slightly off considering @harlan4096 tests Kaspersky w/ unknowns set to "high"? I know it would be hard to sift through all the tests that are 'tweaked' and all the ones that are run on 'default', but this would change the results some. Agree?
Wouldn't the results for Kaspersky be slightly off considering @harlan4096 tests Kaspersky w/ unknowns set to "high"? I know it would be hard to sift through all the tests that are 'tweaked' and all the ones that are run on 'default', but this would change the results some. Agree?
@motox781: Yes there could be a possible slight change on the result.
The main factors are the protection from signatures, BB and HIPS that are predefined thus no more user intervention. But of course, people should consider themselves tweaking the settings in order to attain the maximum protection.
The main factors are the protection from signatures, BB and HIPS that are predefined thus no more user intervention. But of course, people should consider themselves tweaking the settings in order to attain the maximum protection.
- Apr 28, 2015
- 9,397
- 1
- 84,815
- 8,389
As I said, others products in previous months were also tested during some time with a slight tweaked settings: Avast Free, or even Norton, as I can remember...
Thanks for this cool informative thread!
What was the basis for comparing free vs paid versions of antivirus in a single chart? Especially when the paid versions of the free counterparts were available, eg. BitDefender Free vs Kaspersky.
Also there were only limited products tested?
Also there were only limited products tested?
i would like to see more av's like panda and qihoo
Very very good information!
And as they said I would like to see panda, qihoo and Comodo internet security in the next
A Salu2! And many thanks for your efforts!
And as they said I would like to see panda, qihoo and Comodo internet security in the next
A Salu2! And many thanks for your efforts!
Everybody is welcome to the malware hub test.
There are only couple of man that do the test, they can't cover all AV programs.
There are only couple of man that do the test, they can't cover all AV programs.
You may also like...
-
The best antivirus software for Android: March 2025- Started by Gandalf_The_Grey
- Replies: 1
-
Consumer Real-World Protection Test July-October 2025- Started by Minimalist
- Replies: 14
-
Paid vs Free Antivirus in 2026: What are you using, and is it worth paying for?- Started by Bot
- Replies: 96
-
Best Paid Antivirus in Late 2025 – Norton, Bitdefender, or What?
- Started by Bot
- Replies: 63