AV-Comparatives Retrospective Test Nov 2010 and Performance Test Dec 2010

[anuraag]

Retrospective Test Nov 2010 and Performance Test Dec 2010 released!

Read it here...

[0veR]

G-DATA Wins! :lol:

Norton on 8 place :(

[Ehsan]

According to the results Kaspersky is good in Proactive Detection of New malwares...

but too many FP;

Of course It's for KAV 11.0.1.400(a)

what do you recommend?

[anuraag]

According to the results Kaspersky is good in Proactive Detection of New malwares...

but too many FP;

Of course It's for KAV 11.0.1.400(a)

what do you recommend?

kaspersky asked to get tested with heuristic set to high/advanced

due to that high FP

[Zeus_Hunt]

A Good Roundup of Antivirus Tests 2010 on WildersSecurity

[SwordOfWar]

I've been using Norton's Internet Security Suite for years and the last 2 versions have improved considerably.

I know there is a lot of bashing on Norton's products for a long time now. It use to use many resources on the computer also. But really, their latest editions like 2010 or 2011 versions work very well in my opinion and honestly their performance is great considering the amount of real time protections their software uses.

I have also not had any major virus problem for maybe the last 5 years.

Use norton internet security and get the trail reset by box to reset 120 days subscription. Then, download MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware for on-demand scans as a backup/alternative to Norton if you have a difficult time removing something really nasty.

I like Norton's firewall and the whole internet security package in general has just what I need. The Norton 360 edition is bloated with features that are not that useful, in my opinion. Stick to the Internet Security Edition.

I've tried NOD32, which everyone was so hyped up about, and the interface was horrible and it was really lacking in the real-time detection technology. It was more of a "bare bones" approach, so the only real advantage was that it was lightweight and easy on the PC. My experience with Macafee was pretty horrible as well. I don't like their software at all.

I've never tried G DATA but looking at the 2010 report it does seem to have a bit of a false positive on some files. It is almost more important to me to have a low false positive than it is to have a high virus detection rate. I don't want a protection program to start zapping good files that I use.

But in all honesty the sample collection of viruses they use for these tests are usually too small to give a real impression on detection rates. One year the samples may be more detectable on one antivirus, another year with a new sample collection might be detected better by another. None of them are going to have perfect rates. As long as it scores fairly good and consistent accross the years, it's probably good enough to use, and the rest is up to personal preference.

Try all the major security packages out there and stick with the one that feels the most comfortable or suited to your needs. It is much better to try these things out for yourself than go by these test results which really don't hold that much weight to me.

[anuraag]

Performance Test Dec 2010 added

[DKT27]

Performance Test Dec 2010 added

Thanks for the info. :)

Avast is doing very good. Dunno why it slowed down my computer when I tried the v5 free. ANW, will be waiting for v5.1 (final) to try it again. ^_^

[Jordan de Souza]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! Microsoft now is Advanced+ ??? That's surprising dudes...

[manu]

i'm using avast pro antivirus 5.0.667, found it very good. but recent beta version install crashed my system. eagerly waiting for avast 5.1 final

[anuraag]

Whole Product Dynamic Test 2010 released

Report (English)

[anuraag]

i think f-secure or Symantec will get product of the year award from av-comparative

because only these two scored advanced in all tests

[Jordan de Souza]

Whole Product Dynamic Test 2010 released

Report (English)

I didn't understood half of it... =\