Real-World Protection Test - November 2017

[catjc]

Nice to see BullGuard is rising...again..

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

So they are all pretty much 98.9%-100% except eScan and Adaware.

So in the end, this means use whatever you feel comfortable with. Whatever fits your budget. Whatever has the features/interface/extras you like. Because it really is a matter of 1% overall differences provided it's not eScan or Adaware.

Also note, Forticlient scores 98.9% here, but they didn't test 5.6.2, which has the new engine, exploit protection and some other under-the-hood changes. That wasn't out early enough to be included in this test. I'm making an assumption FortiClient would have popped 100% since this was a real-world test. (or close)

 

[HarborFront]

ESET is getting to the bottom.....worse and worse

 

[zzz00m]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is one test of several, that this "real-world" test is basically limited to a "bad url" test.

In this test, all protection features of the product can be used to prevent infection - not just signatures or heuristic file scanning. A suite can step in at any stage of the process – accessing the URL, downloading the file, formation of the file on the local hard drive, file access and file execution – to protect the PC. This means that the test achieves the most realistic way of determining how well the security product protects the PC. Because all of a suite’s components can be used to protect the PC, it is possible for a product to score well in the test by having e.g. very good behavioural protection, but a weak URL blocker. However, we would recommend that all parts of a product should be as effective as possible. It should be borne in mind that not all malware enters computer systems via the Internet, and that e.g. a URL blocker is ineffective against malware introduced to a PC via a USB flash drive or over the local area network.

That is one important component of system protection, but it's not a complete picture. You should also consider the results of the "Malware Protection Test" conducted by the same team. Malware Protection Test - AV-Comparatives.

 

[Syafiq]

ESET is getting to the bottom.....worse and worse

Eset detected 98,9 % of Malicious URLs in the wild, is it not enough ? And, take these results with a grain of salt

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Eset detected 98,9 % of Malicious URLs in the wild, is it not enough ? And, take these results with a grain of salt

If it is URL based, then I am even more suspicious of the 98.9% FortiClient score. Fortinet has pretty legendary URL protection on their products, widely regarded as the best.. Strange.

 

[HarborFront]

Eset detected 98,9 % of Malicious URLs in the wild, is it not enough ? And, take these results with a grain of salt

Just look at the chart and see where ESET stands and tell me is it good enough?

 

[Faybert]

ESET is getting to the bottom.....worse and worse

ESET has declined a lot in recent years, is no longer among the best for quite some time, I was tired of seeing it on MH almost always with the infected system, in my personal tests, never had a good result, always below Avira , Panda, F-Secure, BullGuard. The only thing I like about ESET is good and very light performance, with recent tests, ESET is leaving the scene, and who stands out is BullGuard, an incredible growth of them.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

ESET has declined a lot in recent years, is no longer among the best for quite some time, I was tired of seeing it on MH almost always with the infected system, in my personal tests, never had a good result, always below Avira , Panda, F-Secure, BullGuard. The only thing I like about ESET is good and very light performance, with recent tests, ESET is leaving the scene, and who stands out is BullGuard, an incredible growth of them.

Bullguard has made huge strides lately. The problem is, I found many incompatibilities with it when used with other products like Hitmanpro Alert. By itself it's very good, lightweight and effective. Combined, not so good.

 

[Faybert]

Bullguard has made huge strides lately. The problem is, I found many incompatibilities with it when used with other products like Hitmanpro Alert. By itself it's very good, lightweight and effective. Combined, not so good.

About this (use with other products), do not know tedizer, because I only tested it alone (which for me is enough) I also found it light, even having double engine, nor to notice it, I liked the game mode (it really works), only thing that I did not test well, it was your BB, I do not know if it is so good when G Data and Emsisoft, well, they have been getting the latest updates, I think they are on the right track.

 

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

By itself it's very good, lightweight and effective. Combined, not so good.

They might have improved BB and other detection technologies, wich is good, but UI triggers me, not resizable, clunky, unpleasing navigation through different menus. The saddest thing is that Bullguard have no plans for new UI, but I guess Bullguard's route is still smarter than Pandas - thinking that tweaking UI first with no improvements under the hood is more important.

 

[aragornnnn]

The thing i don't understand is whenever i test Bullguard (last time was 2 months ago) it's almost a 1 in 3 change, malware will slip through
But on these tests it scores 100% and no false positives

 

[HarborFront]

ESET's test results for the past 5 months don't fare any better

AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview

 

[Overlord]

I admit that I am a bit disappointed with ESET results in tests.

 

[Soulbound]

I would strongly advise to take such tests with a huge grain of salt... for reasons that have been said in this forum over the years.

Edit: On a side note, ESET still provides a very good protection for normal user (without any tweaks to its settings).

 

[Nightwalker]

I guess many antivirus vendors learned how to play the game of AV testing, 100 % "protection" and we are still seeing infected machines.

Anyway I would rather use ESET than some of those 100 % scorers.

 

[Soulbound]

I guess many antivirus vendors learned how to play the game of AV testing, 100 % "protection" and we are still seeing infected machines.

Anyway I would rather use ESET than some of those 100 % scorers.

its simply a marketing strategy.

 

[Andy Ful]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is one test of several, that this "real-world" test is basically limited to a "bad url" test.



That is one important component of system protection, but it's not a complete picture. You should also consider the results of the "Malware Protection Test" conducted by the same team. Malware Protection Test - AV-Comparatives.

They use Chrome browser to open bad URLs and allow malware executing.
Q&A - Do you really understand AV test results?

 

[nastavnikhe]

Eset is overpriced.Great marketing and nothing more than others.

 

[FrFc1908]

They might have improved BB and other detection technologies, wich is good, but UI triggers me, not resizable, clunky, unpleasing navigation through different menus. The saddest thing is that Bullguard have no plans for new UI, but I guess Bullguard's route is still smarter than Pandas - thinking that tweaking UI first with no improvements under the hood is more important.

exactly , bullguards gui is not user friendly at all , badly designed and confussing to scroll through.....the rezising bit does not help either luckly for bullguard users ( like me ) the results count!