Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 949111" data-attributes="member: 32260">They probably changed the presentation method from showing the total time (like in Q2 2020) to the average time (total time / number of files).The correct test should include many factors. Some important factors are skipped in any performance test I have seen. For example, the AV-Comparatives skipped some factors present in the MRG Effitas test and vice versa.It is hard to obtain similar results as in the AV testing labs. They use different testing criteria and different hardware. From the fact that AV-Comparatives results fit well to the results obtained on our machines, it does not follow that other tests are faulty. The same can be seen when reading the posts of users on many forums.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite132" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure&nbsp; &nbsp; :unsure:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":unsure:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 949111, member: 32260"] They probably changed the presentation method from showing the total time (like in Q2 2020) to the average time (total time / number of files). The correct test should include many factors. Some important factors are skipped in any performance test I have seen. For example, the AV-Comparatives skipped some factors present in the MRG Effitas test and vice versa. It is hard to obtain similar results as in the AV testing labs. They use different testing criteria and different hardware. From the fact that AV-Comparatives results fit well to the results obtained on our machines, it does not follow that other tests are faulty. The same can be seen when reading the posts of users on many forums.:unsure: [/QUOTE]

Verification