there are some problems with this test which I'm going to say, i like the contribution and time that Trident puts into this subject and I respect everyone who always gives their opinion and makes us more knowledgeable but we as readers/users/semi-professional people should say when some things are wrong and do fact checks, research and experience things ourselves.
my honest opinion about what is wrong with this test again with respect to everyone who contributes to this community:
1. the link to samples should have been shared after the tests were done the problem with that is some people or even employees of some companies can report the links and have their product wining which is good for them in terms of marketing, showing a strong face, or fanboyism
2. the samples seem to be detected in the wild and as far as I tested are detected easily by some low-quality products, they are not challenging.
3. the phishing links are from a public database which even some low-quality products use to detect phishing, it seems maybe designing a phishing website and telling the trusted users of malwartips to use it with some products and test 1 or 2 hours later to see if the product detects the phishing is a more real-world approach this is just a suggestion because it seems you can bring up a website fast so why not use this ability to test phishing?
4. the downloading approach is a good way of testing but these days flash drives are still one of the primary entry points to a system a product with good download protection may lose in another real test which is coping or executing malware from an external drive. this is one of the reasons why AV-C has the malware detection test next to a real-world test.
i don't want to make this post a long one again thank you all for sharing and contributing.