Jump to content

New AV-Comparatives test


anjandavid

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17
  • Views 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sl@pSh0ck™

Thanks for posting this .. G Data and Avira kick ass in this test .... and some new comers did good as well. Nod32's detection rate is just 97.7% ..not bad considering it has one of the lowest false positives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


FP's are just as important as detection %.

Don't exaggerate ;)

FPs are important, but not just as important as detection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Seems that from last few tests Avira is doing very well. The only reason I haven't tried Avira till date is the ad-ware factor. I guess they are not aware that they are losing great/free customers.

This time the report covers a lot of matters. ESET :win: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


NOD32 seems to be mediocre according to those results. Far from being as dominant as it was back in 2005/2006. Avira still surprises me, so does Avast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


NOD32 seems to be mediocre according to those results. Far from being as dominant as it was back in 2005/2006. Avira still surprises me, so does Avast.

Yup!

Dont do tests myself and running 7now different from xp, but pleasantly surprised (if so) by Avast, when it comes to Avira I do have Historical Hatred about free version pushy pop ups... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sl@pSh0ck™

Avira really did a good job on it's FP ... that is the only thing that made me shy away from it before ... now that their FP is good, I might try it out.... I have a 90 days key for it ;)

EDIT:

using avira 9 premium and on first full scan .. 3 FP's ... but I really like how easy it is on resources even when doing a full scan and it is really fast in scanning ... I think I'm going to keep avira for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

I'm not too impressed with Avast's speed after using it for few days. In my real usage tests, I can see that ESET was far more faster when scanning files while opening/using them. On the other end I saw Avast takes less RAM and has no startup scan or is very low hog in doing startup scan.

I don't know why ESET guys push for strong startup scan even when it's constantly scanning files normally in the memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You should be fine, I always do that to. Eset should catch malware with it's real-time protection. BTW, I'm still on NAV2010, and I must say I'm really satisfy. Sometimes I forgot that it's installed on my computer. It's very lite on the resources. And I can see on this test that it scored very good. And G-DATA looks interesting. Anyone tried it? Does it use a lot of resources? Is there a cure available?

Cheers ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sl@pSh0ck™

@mara

for G Data try this link. Read post #85 by BBs

Link to comment
Share on other sites


FP's are just as important as detection %.

Don't exaggerate ;)

FPs are important, but not just as important as detection.

Ohh...like getting a warning that your systemfile is a trojan and then deletes it..>>Bye Bye Windows.. (MCAFFE, remember?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...