Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="artek" data-source="post: 856708" data-attributes="member: 22897">There&#039;s a rather large difference.&nbsp; For example: ESET in the latest AV-comparatives only got a 98.4%.&nbsp; In the previous one it got about the same at 98.3%.&nbsp;&nbsp; In fact, if you look at most of the scoring with AV-comparatives there&#039;s almost no reason to use another vendor other than Microsoft because they are both one of the best, and one of the cheapest.With ESET, the community at large is generally disregarding this poor performance relative to the other vendors - mostly because people like ESET.&nbsp; Now I&#039;m not saying that Webroot is a better anti-virus than ESET.&nbsp; What I am saying, is that whenever any positive performance is brought up in a Webroot test or video, these tests we disregard when they show bad performance for vendors we like, like ESET and Emsisoft (who also no longer participate in AV-comparatives after a spate of bad results), are now suddenly treated as though they are relevant and reflective of real-world performance when analyzing Webroot&#039;s performance.&nbsp; I have noticed that this schizophrenic test like/dislike is almost exclusively directed at Webroot.&nbsp; Otherwise the tests are generally derided as not being reflective of real-world performance.What Webroot does very well, and this has be reflected in tests done by MRG-Effitas, is prevent the exfiltration of user data and the capture of login credentials. They also handle remediation very well.&nbsp; Almost none of tests that are done on the Malware hub deal with the consequences of a failure when a banking trojan captures a user&#039;s banking login and password.&nbsp; For widespread threats, which is what a novice user is typically going to seen in the wild, the tests indicate that Webroot handles these fairly well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="artek, post: 856708, member: 22897"] There's a rather large difference. For example: ESET in the latest AV-comparatives only got a 98.4%. In the previous one it got about the same at 98.3%. In fact, if you look at most of the scoring with AV-comparatives there's almost no reason to use another vendor other than Microsoft because they are both one of the best, and one of the cheapest. With ESET, the community at large is generally disregarding this poor performance relative to the other vendors - mostly because people like ESET. Now I'm not saying that Webroot is a better anti-virus than ESET. What I am saying, is that whenever any positive performance is brought up in a Webroot test or video, these tests we disregard when they show bad performance for vendors we like, like ESET and Emsisoft (who also no longer participate in AV-comparatives after a spate of bad results), are now suddenly treated as though they are relevant and reflective of real-world performance when analyzing Webroot's performance. I have noticed that this schizophrenic test like/dislike is almost exclusively directed at Webroot. Otherwise the tests are generally derided as not being reflective of real-world performance. What Webroot does very well, and this has be reflected in tests done by MRG-Effitas, is prevent the exfiltration of user data and the capture of login credentials. They also handle remediation very well. Almost none of tests that are done on the Malware hub deal with the consequences of a failure when a banking trojan captures a user's banking login and password. For widespread threats, which is what a novice user is typically going to seen in the wild, the tests indicate that Webroot handles these fairly well. [/QUOTE]

Verification