- Oct 15, 2013
- 501
Real-World Protection Test April 2015
- Thread starter aztony
- Start date
- Nov 5, 2013
- 478
"We would like to point out that while some products may sometimes be able to reach 100% protection rates in a test, it does not mean that these products will always protect against all threats on the web. It just means that they were able to block 100% of the widespread malicious samples used in a test. "
- Nov 5, 2013
- 478
- Oct 27, 2014
- 58
- Oct 15, 2013
- 501
Conspicuous by their absence is Qihoo.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Especially when you factor in the user dependent portion!Emsisoft, great as always.
Last edited:
It's always the same group at the top:
Signature-wise, these vendors are consistent. When you get into the other security features there is where you start to see a difference. Case in point is Avira... a truly great freeware scanner, but not much else.
I don't even bother going out of my way to read the AV-C results anymore.
- Avira
- BitDefender
- Emsisoft
- ESET
- F-Secure
- Kaspersky
- Trend Micro
Signature-wise, these vendors are consistent. When you get into the other security features there is where you start to see a difference. Case in point is Avira... a truly great freeware scanner, but not much else.
I don't even bother going out of my way to read the AV-C results anymore.
- Feb 23, 2014
- 3,317
I've gotten to the point in where I can't trust these tests.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Especially when you factor in the user dependent portion!Emsisoft, great as always.
I agree, and in fact I prefer the so called "amateur youtube testers",as a better indication of a products performance!!
Can't trust some vendors.....,can't fully trust the labs!!Oh the irony!!
- May 11, 2015
- 326
You've got to watch those Youtube tests though, as you can't see what happens when the camera isn't on. Plus testing a folder full of malware doesn't say a lot..which is also why these pro tests need to seen as a guideline rather than the last word. People put too much faith in "professionals". I can tell you why Kaspersky is always near the top, because they are aggressive as all get out. I've had a lot more FPs from them than those test results would have people believe. Avast is making its way back to a solid AV, but they spent and still do spend too much time on extras.
- Sep 9, 2013
- 925
AVIRA and PANDA scored an amazing100% , higher than Eset, Kaspersky and Avast.........come on.....seriously??????
The only think i really care is for the poor users who they believe these kind of tests...........
The only think i really care is for the poor users who they believe these kind of tests...........
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
- Jul 16, 2014
- 443
I've used Kaspersky for 8 years now and I've yet to see any FP, also they are called professionals because they do this for a living unlike Youtube tests which often put harmless files in their so called malware packs and use non standard settings (almost no user changes AV settings or uses custom installs).
- May 11, 2015
- 326
Well, your usage and my usage very likely differs. FPs vary by user and circumstance more than they even vary by AV program. I'm also not saying don't trust professionals, I'm saying don't place blind faith in them. Don't for a minute think these testing organizations don't have pressure put on them from vendors, and tech site/magazine reviews always have to be given a second opinion because they definitely have a lot riding on what they print. I'm not calling them all liars or useless, but business is business and the average user needs to figure that into their decisions.
- Jul 16, 2014
- 443
I would love to see some examples for K's FPs... on my test machine I'm testing about 20-50 different software products per week and I love to surf on sketchy sites - zero FPs.
Also the average user doesn't give a damn about detection or performance of AV software, they often pick what looks "good" to them, not based on any of these amateur or professional tests, often they don't even have any protection installed at all.
Oh and about the money: AV vendors have to pay AV-Comparatives for their test (everyone pays the same...) and they are all getting tested equally. If a test is sponsored they mark is as such - so no pressure on them about money or anything.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Indeed! Kis/Kav have always been great in terms of FP'sI would love to see some examples for K's FPs... on my test machine I'm testing about 20-50 different software products per week and I love to surf on sketchy sites - zero FPs.
- May 11, 2015
- 326
I know how they are tested Let's just leave it as my having a healthy skepticism when it comes to the business world. For Kaspersky, to be 100% honest with you I haven't used the product in some time now, so recent examples would be difficult to give you. I'm not saying take my word as fact, never would do that. I can say that quite a few of them involved various game patches in the past. I don't think Kaspersky has ever liked those though. When I choose any security program, I look at known forums like this, gauge actual user opinions over some time and then test it on my machine. If AVC testing and my experience is about the same, sweet!
Let's just leave it as my having a healthy skepticism when it comes to the business world. For Kaspersky, to be 100% honest with you I haven't used the product in some time now, so recent examples would be difficult to give you. I'm not saying take my word as fact, never would do that. I can say that quite a few of them involved various game patches in the past. I don't think Kaspersky has ever liked those though. When I choose any security program, I look at known forums like this, gauge actual user opinions over some time and then test it on my machine. If AVC testing and my experience is about the same, sweet!Similar threads
