Spirit

New Member
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

Waiting for link at wilders where webroot team will explain how they fail again :D
 

McLovin

Level 73
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

I can see a good result from Trend Micro there :p
 
Yes indeed! When I tested it about 2 weeks ago, I was quite surprised to see the boost in their detection. I was already aware of their excellent webguard but when I tested it, I ignored its warnings and downloaded the files and the detection was really good unlike my experience with version 2012.
 
Z

ZeroDay

RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

Stranger said:
Waiting for link at wilders where webroot team will explain how they fail again :D
Indeed it seems they have a new excuse for every test. Lol.
 
Z

ZeroDay

RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

Again, Well done trend Micro.
 
D

Deleted member 178

RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

Stranger said:
Waiting for link at wilders where webroot team will explain how they fail again :D
WSA uses an innovative technology that can't be measured in any test labs :lolz:
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

At least they're accepted in these tests, and results are above 80%.

Stranger said:
Waiting for link at wilders where webroot team will explain how they fail again :D
 

Spirit

New Member
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

ZeroDay said:
Stranger said:
Waiting for link at wilders where webroot team will explain how they fail again :D
Indeed it seems they have a new excuse for every test. Lol.
hahaha
Umbra Corp. said:
Stranger said:
Waiting for link at wilders where webroot team will explain how they fail again :D
WSA uses an innovative technology that can't be measured in any test labs :lolz:
yes the invisible shield which only protect you when you get infected by accident .:p

Earth said:
At least they're accepted in these tests, and results are above 80%.

Stranger said:
Waiting for link at wilders where webroot team will explain how they fail again :D
hmmm yes they dare to take part in test and not run like others :sleepy:
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

I'm not aware of Webroot guaranteeing 100% detection or any claims like that, and I'm not saying that they have not. As far as I know, the reason you're and most are disappointed is because you assume Webroot (Prevx) runs like any other AV product.

In my opinion, Webroot performed well for something another vendor cannot do.

If you look at the chart:
(Webroot) - 11.2% is user dependent, but a 0.6% compromised.
(AVG) - 4.2% user dependant and 1.2% compromised.
(Avast) - 3.5% user dependant and 1.1% compromised.
(Avira) - 1.5% user dependant and 2.7% compromised.

Webroot has a lower compromised rate than 3 AVs that show to detect over 90% of the threats.

Detections rate don't mean squat, that 11.2% is the difference between a clean and infected PC. It's the User infront of the PC who is at fault, not the product. So no, I don't believe Webroot have failed this or that, or any other tests.

Again, I don't take these results to heart.
 

Spirit

New Member
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

I too use av upon my need choice and experience.As fat webroot goes I have got license from Biozfear (Thanks for that) and used it 3-4 months with not big problem however I notice some lag in browsing specially view images so I removed it and now i am with avira. :)
 

McLovin

Level 73
Verified
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Stranger said:
At least now you can proud of TM:D
Always have. Their a great company. Yes they might have their up and downs, but all companies have that.
 

MalwareVirus

New Member
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

Stranger said:
I too use av upon my need choice and experience.As fat webroot goes I have got license from Biozfear (Thanks for that) and used it 3-4 months with not big problem however I notice some lag in browsing specially view images so I removed it and now i am with avira. :)
i m agree with u avira is tooooo better from WSA
I have a trojen due to this i m unable to install kaspersky but WSA not detected it while one day i scan with MBAM it shows trojen that prevented kaspersky to install & also when MBAM shows this threat suddenly WSA shows trojen warning for taking credite.
one thing i like in WSA is its fast scanning.
 

arsenaloyal

Level 2
Verified
RE: av-comparatives - Sep Real World Protection Test

Earth said:
I'm not aware of Webroot guaranteeing 100% detection or any claims like that, and I'm not saying that they have not. As far as I know, the reason you're and most are disappointed is because you assume Webroot (Prevx) runs like any other AV product.

In my opinion, Webroot performed well for something another vendor cannot do.

If you look at the chart:
(Webroot) - 11.2% is user dependent, but a 0.6% compromised.
(AVG) - 4.2% user dependant and 1.2% compromised.
(Avast) - 3.5% user dependant and 1.1% compromised.
(Avira) - 1.5% user dependant and 2.7% compromised.

Webroot has a lower compromised rate than 3 AVs that show to detect over 90% of the threats.

Detections rate don't mean squat, that 11.2% is the difference between a clean and infected PC. It's the User infront of the PC who is at fault, not the product. So no, I don't believe Webroot have failed this or that, or any other tests.

Again, I don't take these results to heart.
I partially agree with you here,but perhaps the test was done keeping in mind the not to technically minded people as well, and by that i mean people who click "yes" or "ok" to every prompt that they see. these people in my opnion are in the majority in real world.
So ideally this tests distinguishes the products capability of how much it can do without the users input.
 

3link9

Level 5
Verified
Great job Trend! 100.0% :D
Webroot did better than usual, I'll give 'em that. Same with Ahnlab
 
Top