AV-Comparatives Whole Product Dynamic Test & On-Demand Comparative

[anuraag]

On-Demand Detection Test released (August 2010)

and

Whole Product Dynamic Test released

In this test all features of the product contribute protection, not only one part (like signatures/ heuristic file scanning). So the ability of detection should be higher than in testing only parts of the product. We would recommend that all parts of a product would be high in detection, not only single components (e.g. URL blocking protects only while browsing the web, but not against malware introduced by other means or already present on the system).

We are going to release each month preliminary results of the Whole-Product-Dynamic test on the website. The final complete report, which summarizes the results of all months (August/September/October/November), will be released begin of December 2010..

Whole Product Dynamic Test this document will be updated frequently

On-Demand Comparative August 2010

[anuraag]

Kaspersky has 46 false positive

[Drolz]

avira, g data, avast, bit defender,f-secure, escan, symantec, eset pctools are topping the charts

recommended av products

avira g data and trustport have high detection rates but have high fase positive rate also

[HX1]

Interesting bits..

Avast, BitDefender, Kingsoft, Norman.. out of the question..period..

Go with 97% or higher..

[DKT27]

ESET as always, the middle man. :D

[HX1]

Actually its the lowest you should choose in this chart.. I hate to say it and its overall score is a little higher but.... It should either be coming long with its issues or its going to be dropped.. Would be nice to see it actually comfortably between the top 3 percentile..

The other or second PDF has all of the details... What sort of worries me is that the yellow sections is up to the user.. and if you include that being that not all people even know what they are doing.. then you have even lower cores for some of these..

[Marik]

didn't expect any less from GData and Avira

[mara-]

I have to agree with heath28m. If ESET don't do something very soon, they'll drop out of the game.

Cheers ;)

[spootnack]

Kaspersky and Symantec results are disappointing !

++

[HX1]

Well to be honest ESET has some of the best options.. and has always been in the top three.. Now.. malware has changed.. and so have some of the other programs.. it is called CHANGE fl000py...

[HX1]

Go back up to that post I made with the image... click to go Lightbox where its larger.. then take a piece of paper and place it at or around where 97-98% would be... THEN any one of them that has green above that line I would consider as an option... The problem comes in consideration of definitions and updates from these companies ( and support/professionalism ) too and their ability to stay dynamic enough to stay ahead or keep abreast of changes in malware and Botnets..and the way systems are used.. viruses and so on.. along with cleaning.. and a false positive rate.. so in some areas even some of those that are below that line have different facets of the protection which make them VERY good programs.. but you have them left open to vulnerabilities.. Now this is why some of the other charts in the other PDF have different scores for different areas.. and the overall rankings are different... so you could balance the two and see what the Top three would be.. These become the most recommended and installed/used - also targeted.. between now and the next tests and scores.. Thats what I have always done.. :)

It sort of a balancing of the scales.. and some of the best vectors for making a decision on which one..

[maia]

On-Demand Detection Test released (September 2010)

AV-Comparatives September 2010

1°.G-Data antivirus: 99,9%

2°.Avira 10 premium security suite: 99,8

3°.Bit-defender and Avast: 99,3

[mara-]

Where do you see that? Latest on their page is from August 2010.

Cheers ;)

[HX1]

All I see is the 09.10 Performance Test and 09.10 Mobile Security Test.. On the right in the box..

[Bizarre™]

On-Demand Detection Test released (September 2010)

AV-Comparatives September 2010

1°.G-Data antivirus: 99,9%

2°.Avira 10 premium security suite: 99,8

3°.Bit-defender and Avast: 99,3

I can only the test for Mobile Security Suites.

I believe AV-Comparatives only release test results once every 3 months or so.

[Siddharta]

I am equally surprised and disappointed by Kaspersky's poor performance in those tests (esp. in false positives :( , it makes me wonder..... :think: Difficult to digest!!!

On the other hand they may well deserve it. When you are about to install either Media Player Classic or Vuze, you are alarmed by KIS with their PDM Keylogger warnings!!!

[spootnack]

I feel that for the Kaspersky 2011, they focused on "new features" and have neglected the scan engine / false-positive rate...

It sxxxx ! :frusty:

[Siddharta]

Avira is starting to become an option to me. Not so many false positives and better performance than Nod32 :yes:

[sasha007]

Symantec has had a poor performance .....

I hoped that 2011 version will blow out evry other av but .....

thy need to work hard nw....

[DKT27]

I may try Avira. Box's TR works right?

[HX1]

I sort of liked Avira.. but there wasn't enough knobs for me...

[DreamHaters]

I may try Avira. Box's TR works right?

I may too, Avira is sure getting high scores.

It's becoming very tempting.

[Siddharta]

Avira trial resetter works, but there is something else in the report I hadn't noticed. Avira (and AVG) asks not to take into account detection by packers. If they let them do so, the number of false positives would be greater no doubt!!! -_-

I am still angry :angry: by the impressive number of false positives that Kaspersky is having!!!!

[n.ane]

Perhaps it's time to look at Trustport.

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-quadrant-Apr-Oct10-600.jpg

It'd be a first time for me :ph34r: It's top of the heap here, and AV-Comparatives rates at an Advanced + We'll be needing a "TrustportLogin", or some such.

VB100 Link