AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test (May 2014)

[212eta]

AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test (May 2014)

Edited June 12, 2014 by 212eta

[Yuuup!]

[Ashish]

Eset has been improving it's score from last 3 months. with 99.4% it's in the top league.

meanwhile Avast is going downhill every month.

[kn_andre]

Panda and Qihoo 360 both seem to be Steadily Holding their own right among the Big Boys . Though, to the " Kings " i Guess this is a clear Message - don't get too Cossy at the Top or you will Lose your place ... Always bring your A game or you will be pushed Off your " Throne " Cheers ...

[iih1]

Kaspersky still hold on their position Qihoo?? just bit under Kaspersky....Avast still hussles with their forums

Edited June 12, 2014 by iih1

[0veR]

Wow Bitdefender is king of antiviruses 100% amaizing :hypocrite:

[Ashish]

It's unbelievable how bitdefender gets 100 % everytime.

july month's data which will be released in august will be interesting, by then almost everyone will have their "2015" version of the suites out

[Guest maut]

No Norton? :huh:

[Ashish]

^^

Symantec does not participates in these tests. Maybe they are afraid of the results

[alaindc]

Sad that Comodo don't participate in these test either...

[manju]

Eset has been improving it's score from last 3 months. with 99.4% it's in the top league.

meanwhile Avast is going downhill every month.

Should be considering changing to BitDefender? i've got a free key for AV from my ISP...

To Ashish and alaindc Symantec and Comodo don't usually pay to get tested bya AV-Comparatives any more (Symantec give up those tests i think and Comodo is a bit piss off with some results but not sure if they where from AV-Comparatives)

[go0gle]

Sad that Comodo don't participate in these test either...

... and not webroot either, which I use, but dont know how god it actually is, except I know it has an excellent performance.

[Boops]

Panda Cloud Antivirus is fantastic, light, fast scanning, the system does not load, always updated thanks to the cloud.

[anuseems]

Bitdefender though getting high ratings, isn't much configurable and slows down the sys considerably. Other AVs use BD engine optionally and also have more customizing features, like Qihoo 360.

[STEEL]

:think:

[The Owl]

so called comparisons like this make me laugh they never include all of the AV's available and especially those I consider the better ones.

Now bear in mind I have been out here "playing" since the late 80's and have never as yet (touch wood) had my machines (multiple) infected and I surf some very dodgy Pirate sites.

since Dr Solomon's got bought out I changed over to NIS till after the 2005 version and stuck with that till they listened to their users and re wrote the program in 2009 when I upgraded in 2010. since Malwarebytes came out I have also ran that as well.

Now please do NOT gob off about "Oh Nortons is a resource hogger" etc because that is absolute BOLLACKS usually spouted by people who have crap machines as is proven by this

Personally I think 99.9999% of these "comparison sites" are paid for their results

For the few of my customers who cannot afford to purchase a AV I install MSE and by and large it keeps them safe fortunately most of the decent ISP's in the UK also supply a AV as well which helps.

[darko999]

so called comparisons like this make me laugh they never include all of the AV's available and especially those I consider the better ones.

Now bear in mind I have been out here "playing" since the late 80's and have never as yet (touch wood) had my machines (multiple) infected and I surf some very dodgy Pirate sites.

since Dr Solomon's got bought out I changed over to NIS till after the 2005 version and stuck with that till they listened to their users and re wrote the program in 2009 when I upgraded in 2010. since Malwarebytes came out I have also ran that as well.

Now please do NOT gob off about "Oh Nortons is a resource hogger" etc because that is absolute BOLLACKS usually spouted by people who have crap machines as is proven by this

Personally I think 99.9999% of these "comparison sites" are paid for their results

For the few of my customers who cannot afford to purchase a AV I install MSE and by and large it keeps them safe fortunately most of the decent ISP's in the UK also supply a AV as well which helps.

Norton is garbage.

[7even]

Norton is garbage.

Why? I'm using NIS since 2009. Though not the best av in the world, it's quite capable for everyday use.

Edited June 16, 2014 by 7even

[sirri]

no offence but enjoy your AV that suit your needs. Bad, Norton pull out their participate from testing organization last 3 years if I remember correctly.

Their engine seem does not like File Detection Test / on Demand Test which will fail to catch nasty

[The Owl]

so called comparisons like this make me laugh they never include all of the AV's available and especially those I consider the better ones.

Now bear in mind I have been out here "playing" since the late 80's and have never as yet (touch wood) had my machines (multiple) infected and I surf some very dodgy Pirate sites.

since Dr Solomon's got bought out I changed over to NIS till after the 2005 version and stuck with that till they listened to their users and re wrote the program in 2009 when I upgraded in 2010. since Malwarebytes came out I have also ran that as well.

Now please do NOT gob off about "Oh Nortons is a resource hogger" etc because that is absolute BOLLACKS usually spouted by people who have crap machines as is proven by this

Personally I think 99.9999% of these "comparison sites" are paid for their results

For the few of my customers who cannot afford to purchase a AV I install MSE and by and large it keeps them safe fortunately most of the decent ISP's in the UK also supply a AV as well which helps.

Norton is garbage.

IMHO there speaks the voice of an (INSERT ADJECTIVE)

closed mind did not read anything I wrote previously I have been out here longer than some of you have been alive and as yet none of my six machines have suffered with a virus because of how I protect my machines I surf more dodgy Pirate software and other stuff web sites per day than most have had hot dinner's and I get a stupid comment.

There are a few around here that have known me at other places including my own place (still running after 13 (will be 14 in July) years) and people wonder why I get dismissive.

You think what you want you have just proven your own closed mind.

[darko999]

Norton is garbage.

Why? I'm using NIS since 2009. Though not the best av in the world, it's quite capable for everyday use.

I didn't want to be mean or anything, I mean its just opinion and that kind of stuff....

But in my case I did a lot of test a few years ago. And Norton did awful, over 57% false positive detection rate that was even worse than Ikarus itself.

It blocked a lot of legitime files just because they were rare or very new files. In the other hand, its behavior protection or call it proactive detection was a joke itself. Temper protection as well, another joke. It did not catch almost anything from all the new samples I executed while running Norton. Hard disk usage was quite higher with Norton running, performance was affected. I didn't find anything that good to be able to ever recommend it to anyone. So in my personal opinion there are so many better avs outhere.

Like Sirri said, just go for what suit your needs. But seriously, Norton is just bad =/.

Edited June 16, 2014 by darko999

[The Owl]

Norton is garbage.

Why? I'm using NIS since 2009. Though not the best av in the world, it's quite capable for everyday use.

I didn't want to be mean or anything, I mean its just opinion and that kind of stuff....

But in my case I did a lot of test a few years ago. And Norton did awful, over 57% false positive detection rate that was even worse than Ikarus itself.

It blocked a lot of legitime files just because they were rare or very new files. In the other hand, its behavior protection or call it proactive detection was a joke itself. Temper protection as well, another joke. It did not catch almost anything from all the new samples I executed while running Norton. Hard disk usage was quite higher with Norton running, performance was affected. I didn't find anything that good to be able to ever recommend it to anyone. So in my personal opinion there are so many better avs outhere.

Like Sirri said, just go for what suit your needs. But seriously, Norton is just bad =/.

Can you read the CPU Usage on the capture?? does SYSTEM 1% and Norton's 0% mean anything to you?

I am sitting here watching Windows task manager saying virtually the same now. OK Yes I have a decent machine with a Decent CPU if you haven't don't blame the program.

Oh just so you know

[The Owl]

Oh and this is a fairly normal level of "drain"

[darko999]

Oh and this is a fairly normal level of "drain"

Norton is garbage.

Why? I'm using NIS since 2009. Though not the best av in the world, it's quite capable for everyday use.

I didn't want to be mean or anything, I mean its just opinion and that kind of stuff....

But in my case I did a lot of test a few years ago. And Norton did awful, over 57% false positive detection rate that was even worse than Ikarus itself.

It blocked a lot of legitime files just because they were rare or very new files. In the other hand, its behavior protection or call it proactive detection was a joke itself. Temper protection as well, another joke. It did not catch almost anything from all the new samples I executed while running Norton. Hard disk usage was quite higher with Norton running, performance was affected. I didn't find anything that good to be able to ever recommend it to anyone. So in my personal opinion there are so many better avs outhere.

Like Sirri said, just go for what suit your needs. But seriously, Norton is just bad =/.

Can you read the CPU Usage on the capture?? does SYSTEM 1% and Norton's 0% mean anything to you?

I am sitting here watching Windows task manager saying virtually the same now. OK Yes I have a decent machine with a Decent CPU if you haven't don't blame the program.

Oh just so you know

It actually tells me nothing. I only remember Bitdefender being one of these using 1-3% cpu usage when not running any manual on demand scan. Everyone else was the same 0% cpu usage. Of course I tested mainstream solutions, but thats what I got. The difference is actually on the real time scaning modules, which will slowdown your program startup speed depending on how the real time scaning module works. As I said, it could use 0% cpu like Emsisoft, yet you will still feel a system performance impact when launching programs.

It's my opinion, I tested it a few years ago and it may be better now. But I can't stand a security soulution with no basic behavior protection, and with 0 heuristic detection. KIS 2015 runs smoother than NIS and is like 10 times better.

[The Owl]

did you not LOOK at the processes being run?? 94 ! ! !

and as I said before I have six machines here (one on Android) but the other five four are W7 and my Son's Lappy is W8.1 all run VERY happily Nortons and I purchase a Five licence box usually under £40 so a tenner a year and have you never noticed there is NO full hack for Norton's? only a trial reset that is haphazard to say the least. Whereas I can get you enough keygen / hacks to sink a battleship for any other AV.

It's very simple you are BIASED and probably don't have the first clue on setting Norton's up or you have such a low level machine it struggles to run sensible.