Quick File-Detection Test: Qihoo vs Avast vs Comodo

[Rolo]

Update: SecureAPlus test is below.

Since the "professional" (bought and certainly unbiased, nudge nudge, wink wink) AV testers don't test Comodo or Qihoo at present, I had to.

Link as to not cross-post: http://malwaretips.com/threads/is-it-safe-to-use-360-ts-or-or-other-360s-products.46792/#post-398096

TL;DR: Avast left 29 threats; Comodo, 32; Qihoo, 4

Question: is there a Win10 version of 360 Essentials?

 

[SillyBilly299]

Yes. There is a version for Windoes 10 Technical Preview. Download here : http://free.360totalsecurity.com/totalsecurity/360TS_Setup_For_Win10_TP_6.8.0.6012.exe

 

[OokamiCreed]

Qihoo uses Bitdefender by default with the addition of Avira if you turn it on. So literally, these file detection tests are void... Only real test is to turn off Bitdefender and Avira to get the detection rate they themselves deserve. That pretty much goes to any twin or more engine AV. It's unfair to take the detection rate of other AV's and make them your own in a real test of detection.

Just my opinion.

 

[marg]

For free Qihoo Antivirus products are great IMO. As long as 360 catches the creepy crawlers, who cares what engines they use JMO.

 

[OokamiCreed]

For free Qihoo Antivirus products are great IMO. As long as 360 catches the creepy crawlers, who cares what engines they use JMO.

True but just don't consider the detections of other AV's to be Qihoo's. Real world test should include these engines, just not file detection tests.

 

[jamescv7]

The strong part is their QVM engine which can manage to detect most threats and two backup engines will increase a little bit 1-2% upon detection capabilities.

Gdata is another well known good competitor to Qihoo 360.

 

[Atlas147]

Comodo doesn't focus on the detection of the malware, but rather they make sure that it is sandboxed and contained from the system so they can't do much damage.
Qihoo has a ton of FPs too, take that into consideration.

 

[Rolo]

Yes. There is a version for Windoes 10 Technical Preview. Download here : http://free.360totalsecurity.com/totalsecurity/360TS_Setup_For_Win10_TP_6.8.0.6012.exe

That's the one I have, not the essentials (I don't want the "cleaners" and such).

Qihoo uses Bitdefender by default with the addition of Avira if you turn it on. So literally, these file detection tests are void... Only real test is to turn off Bitdefender and Avira to get the detection rate they themselves deserve. That pretty much goes to any twin or more engine AV. It's unfair to take the detection rate of other AV's and make them your own in a real test of detection.

Incorrect for a few reasons:
- As I said in the test, default settings are irrelevant; anyone putting thought into security will not just accept defaults. Besides, I'm testing for my use, not John Q. Public's
- By your logic, one cannot like apple pie since you have to remove the apples before you can comment on the pie. I tested Qihoo, not BD or Avira.
- By what standard is, "fair"? How does "fair" play into computer security? Qihoo removed the most threats, neither BD nor Avira--that's an absolute observable, repeatable fact. Additionally, I have a free 1-year license for Bitdefender Total Security that I junked (7 months left) because the program's awfulness eclipse's the engine's awesomeness. Qihoo gives me BD engine without BD problems
- I tried scanning without the BD and Avira engines but it didn't appear to work since it found the same number of threats in each of the three configurations, leaving me to conclude that those settings only apply to real-time scanning if you already have the engines installed (or the settings don't work properly after being enabled). The only other explanation would be that Qihoo's engine(s) found all the threats and BD/Avira found none (I'm not going with that one).

 

[Rolo]

Comodo doesn't focus on the detection of the malware, but rather they make sure that it is sandboxed and contained from the system so they can't do much damage.
Qihoo has a ton of FPs too, take that into consideration.

It wasn't a "real-world" test; I was only testing file-scanning. I had no real-time protection enabled. I'm looking for the best free solution for each layer rather than an all-in-one.

 

[OokamiCreed]

That's the one I have, not the essentials (I don't want the "cleaners" and such).


Incorrect for a few reasons:
- As I said in the test, default settings are irrelevant; anyone putting thought into security will not just accept defaults. Besides, I'm testing for my use, not John Q. Public's
- By your logic, one cannot like apple pie since you have to remove the apples before you can comment on the pie. I tested Qihoo, not BD or Avira.
- By what standard is, "fair"? How does "fair" play into computer security? Qihoo removed the most threats, neither BD nor Avira--that's an absolute observable, repeatable fact. Additionally, I have a free 1-year license for Bitdefender Total Security that I junked (7 months left) because the program's awfulness eclipse's the engine's awesomeness. Qihoo gives me BD engine without BD problems
- I tried scanning without the BD and Avira engines but it didn't appear to work since it found the same number of threats in each of the three configurations, leaving me to conclude that those settings only apply to real-time scanning if you already have the engines installed (or the settings don't work properly after being enabled). The only other explanation would be that Qihoo's engine(s) found all the threats and BD/Avira found none (I'm not going with that one).

We can argue all day about what is fair, but as you can recall I said "in my opinon" and that can't and won't be debated. So no, it is NOT incorrect. By my logic, you can't take credit for something you didn't work for. Anyone can pay to get something, but that don't make it yours to take credit for. And by turning off Avira and Bitdefender, they still seem to use the engines regardless as they had detection names of Bitdefender which aren't theirs. Whether or not turning off these engines takes time to register is their problem to solve. In real world test, Qihoo has been compromised time and time again. Comodo and Avast free have far better real world protection than Qihoo does. Like it or lump it. I do my own tests and I'm very harsh with them. All tested at default and custom (max) protection. Qihoo isn't as good as people think it is and their practices make me question them time and time again.

Another thing is why only test Qihoo against these 2? Why not Bitdefender free, etc?

 

[Rolo]

By my logic, you can't take credit for something you didn't work for. Anyone can pay to get something, but that don't make it yours to take credit for.

- My Chrysler came with a Mitsubishi turbo; does that make my car "void"? Does that somehow negatively effect my getting from point A to point B or invalidate my 1/4-mile time?
- Nobody is taking credit for work they didn't do; nobody hid what engines they are using; BD, et al. licenses their engine to other companies and there isn't anything wrong with that
- File-protection tests aren't about "credit"; they are about finding the best tool for the job
- It's that kind of bias that has no place in evaluating performance

In real world test, Qihoo has been compromised time and time again. Comodo and Avast free have far better real world protection than Qihoo does. Like it or lump it. I do my own tests and I'm very harsh with them. All tested at default and custom (max) protection.

I would like to see these results as I'm still deciding which to choose.

Another thing is why only test Qihoo against these 2? Why not Bitdefender free, etc?

If you've read my post, you would see that I tested more than those two. I didn't test BD free because, as I've stated, I already have BDTS and I don't like BD's software/have compatibility issues with it). Besides, as you've repeatedly pointed out, I already have BD with Qihoo.

 

[Venustus]

Qihoo uses Bitdefender by default with the addition of Avira if you turn it on. So literally, these file detection tests are void... Only real test is to turn off Bitdefender and Avira to get the detection rate they themselves deserve. That pretty much goes to any twin or more engine AV. It's unfair to take the detection rate of other AV's and make them your own in a real test of detection.

Just my opinion.

Agreed!
Oh, and lets not forget the recent testing fiasco......

 

[OokamiCreed]

- My Chrysler came with a Mitsubishi turbo; does that make my car "void"? Does that somehow negatively effect my getting from point A to point B or invalidate my 1/4-mile time?
- Nobody is taking credit for work they didn't do; nobody hid what engines they are using; BD, et al. licenses their engine to other companies and there isn't anything wrong with that
- File-protection tests aren't about "credit"; they are about finding the best tool for the job
- It's that kind of bias that has no place in evaluating performance


I would like to see these results as I'm still deciding which to choose.


If you've read my post, you would see that I tested more than those two. I didn't test BD free because, as I've stated, I already have BDTS and I don't like BD's software/have compatibility issues with it). Besides, as you've repeatedly pointed out, I already have BD with Qihoo.

Don't know why your comparing real objects to programs but ok. I'm not the type to push people into a wall. I'm merely stating facts from experience and testing. While I do not record results from my tests, I might start doing so in the future (recording video is kind of hard on my system - and screenshot are not that reliable to show full test results). The tests that I do are to help myself make an informed decision. I can never decide what AV to use. They all have downsides. Also I do apologize if I came off as a bit harsh as I have a habit of defending my opinions, and others opinions, from being shot down very aggressively. The internet is a harsh place and I have no idea how people are coming off at me or others as you can't really put emotion into words. (That why I prefer calling instead of texting, etc).

As for bias, there was no bias. Qihoo has had issues with privacy and have done shady thing which does matter in security. You want someone watching you while your in the bathroom? Sure other AV's take information, but some far more than others (not saying Qihoo takes the most, they probably don't). Personal information is the whole reason for AV's to exist. To protect it. Not to take it and sell it, etc. Also with the multi-engine AV's, I treat them all the same. Qihoo isn't the only one being shoved by me here. I've taken hits at Emsisoft before as well and people always defend it which is fine. If I can turn off that extra engine, I do. I want to see what THEY did, not what someone else did. I'll just test Avira or Bitdefender by themselves to get what they can do.

As I have said, and will continue to say, in a test, file detection should be rated on detection level by it's own engines/signatures, not using another well known, high detection AV engine/signatures. In a real world test however, these do not matter. You are supposed to get the full strength that it can offer you. It's really as simple at that. I see no reason to consider my words as unfair. If you want to use real physical objects as comparison, how about this. Would it be fair to test a speed of a car with nitro in it? No. It would be fine in a race where all cars are modified however (real racing, not just testing it's own performance). Hell yes. You want to push your car to it's limit with everything you can slap in it.

I end my case here. I hope that you don't think I'm trying to offend you or anyone else here. In this unfair world, I make things as fair as possible. Aggressively and without mercy.

 

[WinXPert]

no problem with 360TS. Never used BD engine.

Home netbook: Avira and BD engines are off
Work Desktop: Avira on BD off

works for me. Prefer this over Avira, Avast or Panda.

 

[OokamiCreed]

no problem with 360TS. Never used BD engine.

Home netbook: Avira and BD engines are off
Work Desktop: Avira on BD off

works for me. Prefer this over Avira, Avast or Panda.

I also feel the same. I don't care too much for Avira, Avast, or Panda. Avira and my setup don't get along, Avast is fine but I think it is covered in some upgrade now crap, and Panda slows my internet down. Qihoo has none of these downsides.

 

[Rolo]

Don't need a video (I prefer reading anyway)...just document what you've found. That's all I did in case anyone else was wondering the same/similar thing (which they were).

No apologies necessary; this isn't personal. We discuss ideas, facts, observations. If you don't start a sentence with, "You...", you're good.

Bias is to bring other "things" unrelated to performance testing. Qihoo's privacy policy has nothing to do with its detection rates. Qihoo changing default settings has nothing to do with its detection rates on my machine as I never use default settings (or anyone taking the time to be on this forum even). Anything outside the software's file-detection performance (the context here) is bias.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: "fair/unfair" (and abstract, arbitrary concept) doesn't fit in a concrete test on a tangible product. Yes, software is a tangible product. Until EA buys your company and kills it.

 

[OokamiCreed]

Don't need a video (I prefer reading anyway)...just document what you've found. That's all I did in case anyone else was wondering the same/similar thing (which they were).

No apologies necessary; this isn't personal. We discuss ideas, facts, observations. If you don't start a sentence with, "You...", you're good.

Bias is to bring other "things" unrelated to performance testing. Qihoo's privacy policy has nothing to do with its detection rates. Qihoo changing default settings has nothing to do with its detection rates on my machine as I never use default settings (or anyone taking the time to be on this forum even). Anything outside the software's file-detection performance (the context here) is bias.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: "fair/unfair" (and abstract, arbitrary concept) doesn't fit in a concrete test on a tangible product. Yes, software is a tangible product. Until EA buys your company and kills it.

I have gone off topic (as I do all the time, my bad), but I fail to see how I am showing bias against or for Qihoo. The definition of bias is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair" - it has nothing to do with bring other aspects of the same object or thing into it. I am not against Qihoo, and I show no favor toward or against ANY AV. I also have shown many times that even when I do have bias against something, I give it a completely unbiased review.

For example: I said I don't like Kaspersky leadership and how they have a huge ego (which hurts you in the end and isn't professional at all) and they, like most other AV's, take considerable amount of data which can be used against you unless it is anonymous, which most of the time, it's not. Personally identifying you does NOT help them or you. It's an abuse of privacy. They can have all the data they want from me as long as it can't identify me personally. That's like watching me everyday in person. Despite all this however, when I put Kaspersky IS to the grind stone, I said it has very good (or maybe the best) real world protection I've ever seen. Biased? I think not. I'm not even debating Qihoo's real world testing here. It simply isn't nearly as good as others. And really don't need to be if you know how to work a computer. It's not hard. Don't run suspicious files. Done. Have your firewall configured correctly. Easy. Windows Firewall does it's job fine by it's own.

I feel like I've made more than enough examples to prove that testing an AV detection rate, with other peoples belonging is inaccurate and void. You slap a video card in a Dell computer, and test it against the same exact computer computer with crap integrated stock hardware. That is essentially what is happening here. I really don't know what else to say. Any one who wants to push aside what I said, that is fine. Ignore it and move on.

 

[Rolo]

Quick little update since I wanted to test SecureAPlus:

I ran SecureAPlus 3.3.6 on the same set of samples and let it quarantine everything it found.
It left 44 items for Zemana to find, 85 items for Qihoo (all engines) to find, and 28 items for Malwarebytes AntiMalware to find.

After cleaning with MBAM:
Zemana found 32 items and Qihoo found 68 items.

After cleaning with Qihoo:
Zemana found 4 items.

After restoring everything MBAM quarantined:
Qihoo found 17 items.

After cleaning with Qihoo, I wanted to see what was left for MBAM; MBAM found 11 items (1 OpenCandy, 1 Virus, 9 Adwares).