Indeed it seems they have a new excuse for every test. Lol.Stranger said:
WSA uses an innovative technology that can't be measured in any test labs :lolz:Stranger said:
yes the invisible shield which only protect you when you get infected by accident .Umbra Corp. said:
hmmm yes they dare to take part in test and not run like others :sleepy:Earth said:
i m agree with u avira is tooooo better from WSAStranger 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 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.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.