Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 PCMag review

[Petrovic]

Good, Not Great
Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 packs in more security-related bonus features than any other free antivirus I can think of. Those features would be a lovely addition to an excellent free antivirus. The problem is that Qihoo's core antivirus protection doesn't quite measure up. There's not much to go on from the independent labs, but its scores in our own malware blocking and malicious URL blocking tests were just average. And somehow going from the previous edition to this one, its antiphishing score went from near the top to near the bottom.

If Qihoo's many extras fill you with delight, you can go ahead and use it. But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices. All five of the independent testing labs that I follow include both Avast Free Antivirus 2016 and AVG AntiVirus Free (2016) in their testing, giving them good marks overall. Panda Free Antivirus (2016) includes a collection of bonus features that almost rivals Qihoo's. All three are Editors' Choice winners for free antivirus.

Full Article

 

[Kate_L]

"But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices", I feel like who did this test has an agenda.

 

[Janl1992l]

"But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices", I feel like who did this test has an agenda.

Any reason? Hes just write. there are better alternatives out there.

 

[Kate_L]

If you do some testing or just watch Malware Analysis here on MT, you can see that Qihoo is in top 3 AV. If you wanna go to the next level, look at all the docs from Wikileaks and HackingTeam and see how this so called TOP AVs fail.

 

[Soulbound]

I honestly stopped reading PCMAG reviews after seeing how they trash competent solutions

 

[FleischmannTV]

I am very sceptical when it comes to malware detection from PCMag. @Fabian Wosar wrote on Wilders they don't share samples with vendors, so they cannot even respond in regards to missed malware and false positives. Though I don't know whether this habit has changed in the meantime.

 

[hjlbx]

Rubenking probably used default scan engines. If that is indeed the case, then the AV scan detection results are no surprise.

The Qihoo engines are mediocre. I would bet with the Avira and Bitdefender engines enabled it would be a different outcome.

Phishing protection = IP address blocking. That's about it for most AVs. Besides, the likelihood of visiting a real phishing page is quite small - even for typical users.

* * * * *

In fact, Rubenking always uses the default settings if my memory serves me right -- because he tests from the standpoint of a n00b that doesn't know any better.

Rubenking is one of those people that thinks security softs should always be "default-allow" for the user but at the same time be 100 % spot-on at detecting malicious activity 100 % of the time.

It's the face of stupidity... and will never be possible without a SkyNet-grade AV. Heh, heh... SkyNet will solve the problem by killing the user. No user on computer means no possibility of infection.

 

[Deleted member 2913]

Where is the actual test page?

The description on the first post mention 3/5. The link on the first post takes me to Qihoo review with 3/5 score but suddenly the page refresh to Qihoo with 3.5/5 score & no test on the page?

 

[BoraMurdar]

I don't want to read any Neil's reviews. IMO he is not good objective reviewer. Especially hate his
"-Hey, I bought a new Samsung TV, let me show you
-Yeah, I know, but Norton is better"
...ish behavior

 

[jamescv7]

Honestly the methodology of PCMag test is something unique in the sense a full of contradictions.

The effectiveness of Qihoo is definitely big contrary compare on other alternative testing organizations and individuals.

Even though the two engines (Avira and Bitdefender) are not enabled, the in-house engine must be fully kicked in.

 

[Deleted member 178]

PC Mag? bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

 

[Black Faith]

Lol.Wouldn't trust jack ##### those guys say.Sorry for swearing but seriously?Who the hell still bothers with pcmag o.o

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

Sorry PCmag is a great source for good stories,
but not a place I go to for Security Software Reviews, No one should.
Not credible like, AV Comapritives, Virus Bulletin, & MT ect.
I would trust reviews from rabid chipmonks before PCmag.

 

[hjlbx]

None of the well-known, widely accepted antivirus testing agencies are all that great either. If you closely read and investigate their testing methodology, then you will immediately begin to see there are more than a few problems.

All you can do is look at all the tests from all the labs in aggregate to get an idea of an AV's overall performance - but only at default settings; AV test labs do not test advanced settings configurations.

So, in short, this type of testing gives a very one-sided picture of how effective an AV actually is...

 

[omidomi]

I read amazing pm's but I agree more with @Umbra !
Pc mag? bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

 

[Solarlynx]

Neil devoted his article to 360TSE but describes it as its full version 360TS i.e. "...comes with a ton of bonus tools". All photos are for 360TS, chapter "Speedup, Cleanup, and More" obviously cannot be about stripped version 360TSE. I wish he was more attentive.

 

[Andytay70]

Always read more than 1 review before making your mind up on security software!

 

[DardiM]

When I look at Malware Hubs, it seems QTS 360 has very often better static detection on recent malware than KIS/KTS (I use it).
For exemple, on the 12-06-2016 malware pack, my KTS only detected 9/17 (KSN cloud activated). QTS 360 : 17/17 (ZAM 17/17, MBAM 5/17, Crystal Security 17/17).
I am very surprised.

N.B. : I SUD the undetected files to Kaspersky

 

[jamescv7]

Many flaws at all.

The samples and its threats must be valid instead of harmless files; so literally there are so many holes for it.

If I were for PCMag, go and get samples that are strongest points of AV then another that are so nasty. For sure they will surprise if the top rated product may not be same at all.

The point also is, PCMag must clear enough if the engines are fully 'ON' or not.

 

[AtlBo]

In the last days I did some test with Qihoo and I don't know what was he problem but now I think my program works properly.
When I installed the Qihoo 360 total security (offline) the program activated the Bitdefender engine. I checked the options.
In the "Settings" > "Virus Scan" > "Scan Engine removal" > "Bitdefender Engine" said:
Realtime Scan: Enabled
Manual Scan: Disabled

I couldn't change it, so I uninstalled the Bitdefender engine. After that..
In the Main window the "PROTECTION: ON" > "Configure" menu I installed/activated the Bitdefender and Avira engines.
Now the program says the Realtime and Manual scans are Enabled in both engines.
Maybe it helps if you have the same problem!

Thanks. I had downloaded the Bitdefender and Avira Engines when I first started using 360 many months ago, but I didn't realize that they must be configured this way until I saw the post.

I feel that 360 is a very good product. The alerts are "substantial" imo, such as potential keylog threats or potentially dangerous programs. One is example is a mouse macro program I downloaded to play around with. 360 quarantined the installer, but it was no problem to restore it and place it in the trusted files list. All of the hits I have ever gotten over the last couple of years (about 30-40 including system warnings) of using the program have been sensible. Also, the hits are enough for me to feel that 360 is an effective security a-v...