AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection, Malware Protection and False Alarm Test March 2025

[roger_m]

Have you perform update after install?

Currently, only Ultimate Security has a version 17. AV Premium and Total Security are still at version 16. Also the Russian rebrand with a new UI, PRO32 only has a v16.

 

[Zero Knowledge]

It is marketing hype. Misleading.

Yeah that's not good, how to do they get 99.94% from the other statistics. That just stinks!

 

[Digmor Crusher]

It is marketing hype. Misleading.

View attachment 288077

Some of these make no sense for me, look at Panda, Quick Heal, Mcafee and Trend Micro, I don't get it.

 

[Szellem]

F-Secure's results are stark. I have not seen so many fps in fps country.

 

[roger_m]

Some of these make no sense for me, look at Panda, Quick Heal, Mcafee and Trend Micro, I don't get it.

The new version of McAfee that was released early least year, no longer uses local signatures.

 

[Dreams&Visions]

Currently, only Ultimate Security has a version 17. AV Premium and Total Security are still at version 16. Also the Russian rebrand with a new UI, PRO32 only has a v16.

Ah, thanks for letting us know, very strange, why would you service two different releases? Obviously, Ultimate Security has a bunch of non-security related extras (just like many full fledged suites), but they shouldn't be the dealbreaker. As long as the offer is valid, the price for Infiniti is.

 

[SeriousHoax]

It is marketing hype. Misleading.

View attachment 288077

I won't call it misleading because Online Protection rate is still the most important part of the test even though I would prefer an AV to detect as much as possible via offline signatures and heuristics.

 

[bazang]

I won't call it misleading because Online Protection rate is still the most important part of the test even though I would prefer an AV to detect as much as possible via offline signatures and heuristics.

If the first priority is to provide a high "Online Protection Rate," then people are better off just optimizing their browsers with plugins that provide a very high denied access rate to malware containing sites, phishing, etc. Much less resources required, much easier for the user to cope with and manage, and zero (0 Euros) cost.

As I have said many times, these AV test lab results are from highly contrived tests that are designed - by intent - to show the test products in the best light possible. The objective of a AV test lab is NOT to show how weak AV and security software actually are.

It is misleading. If Microsoft and all the other AV and internet security suite publishers released their complete, real-world full infection and bypass rates and details (the truth versus AV test lab reports), nobody here would use any of them.