App Review Ranking EVERY Antivirus in 300 Seconds (WORST to BEST)

[stonjean633]

Bitdefender is super nice in their corp gravity release with addon sandbox scanning but that is expensive and outside of consumer market. Also, very resource heavy on a low end machine.

I disagree/agree with ESET; sure it gets 99 or 98% detection but at least it's consitent across space and time. IT does not flactuate from 100% detection to 80% detection when looked at from early 2000's to now. It just stays the same. As such you know what you are getting vs playing a whack a mole of effectiveness. And most importantly it's super super light even on my old arse Celery laptop.

Those 2% or 1% detection loss in real world for a consumer market means nothing. Chances of everyday user getting a strain that bypasses ESET is exteremlly low; you really have to go digging in dark web and/or dark corners of the regular web to obtain that infection.

Just my 10c (incraese from 2c due to inflation and tarrifs).

Love the last line. Even those get taxed.

 

[Behold Eck]

And with all honesty the criterion followed by MT testers is also flawed.

Might this be because Webroot never fairs too well?

On the subject of vintage UI`s did anybody notice the Panda one in the video which was about 12 years old?

Regards Eck

 

[stonjean633]

Might this be because Webroot never fairs too well?

On the subject of vintage UI`s did anybody notice the Panda one in the video which was about 12 years old?

Regards Eck

Yes it's the old Cloud and not the Dome.

 

[Jonny Quest]

And with all honesty the criterion followed by MT testers is also flawed.

IMO, I believe 1/2 - 3/4 of it is correct, the malware testing, just not the real world testing, apart from the browser testing of phishing, malware website links.
It does, they do give us a general idea of what to consider, as far as the tests and its results.