AV-Comparatives real-world protection test August 2014

AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview

Panda: Too many FP's ...... (king of FPs)
Avast: Blocked=96.1% only.
And Vipre is trying to reach the AhnLab
Finally, a test which shows Kaspersky do not have 100%. A bit more realistic. But Avira at 100%, that is new.

Avira Antivirus Pro is what I use, bought a 4 year license recently as after trying them all and actually owning a license for them all.....Avira gave me the least performance impact and no quirks at all.

NOD32, which was the king of lightness in the past, has become one of the heaviest for me and has a lot of system quircks, like it corrupts my Outlook IMAP profile and i've seen that issue reported a few times on their forums.....it also doesn't allow me to connect to some sites like I was not able to register my Samsung SSD when I had NOD32 installed, even if I disable it, only uninstalling it then I was able to click the submit button on the Samsung site

Emsisoft Anti-Malware, I would say this is the second FP king, gave me nothing but trouble I couldn't run most my legit programs which include SVP (Smooth Video Project)

MSE: out of the question off-course, they have lost the privilege of even competing since they do horribly

 

I also use Avira and have installed it on all the computers at my workplace. It's a good combination of light on resources and effective.

 

+1, it's the only AV that has some of the best detection rates yet with no quirks or any system performance hit

 

Is Avira still tested with all possible security settings enabled rather than the default configuration? That was how AV Comparatives used to test it, and I can't imagine anyone actually using it that way in the real world as the nagging would be unbeareable...

 

How is avira now compared to kaspersky? I think i used avira 8 years or so ago and i didnt like it

 

what nagging? I've always installed it with the default settings and never got a single nag or false positive pop up?

The only pop up I got was when I plugged in an external USB it said it has disabled auto run for that device for security reason. Not exactly a bad thing IMO

I have a license for KAV and KIS as well so I tried both. KAV and KIS are big resource hogs, I could feel my system literally so much slower as if I have downgraded some major component with KIS/KAV installed. In addition, if you browser their forums, the amount of complaints and bugs is just horrific.

a few threads I quickly picked:

Compatibility Issues With Windows 8.1

Can't access Outlook Web App email account after installing kis15MR1

KIS cause my game crashes to Desktop

Skype drops calls since installing kaspersky

 

That's the thing - in past years, the AV Comparatives test results for Avira would not have been representative of your particular Avira installation since they turned on all possible heuristics settings for their tests. Or to put it another way, your Avira installation would not have provided you with as much protection as the test results indicated.

I don't know if that's still the case, and it would be good to know.

 

Says who? Like you say, they weren't even tested, so how do we know?

 

Actually, MSE was tested - it's the white horizontal dotted line running across the chart at around 85%

 

Says AV Comparatives, I don't know how can they be more obvious than this.....

 

Well, description doesn't make sense. Out of box win 7 don't have MSE, where out of box win8 come with MSE(defender sort of thing).

 

O.k., so that looks like MSE is perfectly fine. Given that the overall benefit of AV software is minimal in any case (well, on a properly configured system), the small differences they found in their tests are in the noise. Generally speaking, worrying about what AV to install is a waste of time.

 

Considering virtually all of the antivirus programs tested catch at least 10% more problems than Microsoft Security Essentials, I disagree with the comment that MSE is "perfectly fine." While you may consider selecting a good anti-virus program to be a "waste of time," I prefer to spend the time now so I don't have to worry later about what to do if my system becomes compromised.

 

+1

While to some MSE is perfectly fine, even though I am a safe user, all my software are legally purchased, no cracks or what not, I don't visit shady sites and I use common sense when I receive any suspisious email link or what not. But that doesn't meant I wouldn't want to have a top notch AV just for that one bad day you know.

Now speaking of MSE, not only does Microsoft themselves advice users to use a proper AV other than MSE/Defender, but every PC I get to repair that has a virus or malware has MSE installed.

One time I also went over to my mother's place and she told me to check my 11 year old sister's computer as it had a virus...

Upon checking it, the virus detected by MSE was some Wireless Network Password viewer, I checked it on virus total and it was a safe file so it's an FP, but anyway, she didn't need that so I instructed MSE to delete the virus....

next reboot.......MSE alerts me about a virus, it's the same virus..... it wasn't even able to delete an FP. I would never trust my security with Microshaft nor can I recommend installing MSE/or keeping Windows Defender on anyone's computer. I mean seriously.......why? when there are many good free alternatives.......I would take AVG Free or avast! Free any day over MSE/Defender

The first thing I do when I install Windows is to Uninstall Windows Defender completely, its services, control panel entry, startup items, everything.... it's very easy with the tool I linked


Microsoft: Security Essentials is designed to be bottom of the antivirus rankings

Now with all this said, this is *my* experience, if Windows Defender / MSE works for some people, then I'm happy for them, not attacking anyone, just saying how I use my systems and what I recommend to others...... there is no reason in the world to settle for a baseline AV when there are many good free ones.

 

I would prefer not to spend my time chasing an anti-virus solution. What is the incentive to be giving away "free" anti-virus software anyway? For Microsoft it is just another competitive edge they build into their product.

Secure your computer properly and don't be careless - that is the best solution.

 

The incentive for security companies to have free software is twofold: it provides free advertising via word of mouth and professional tests that their product is effective, and it gains the company goodwill by offering an effective free solution. Such benefits encourage people to try then buy. Many users purchase non-free versions of security software after they have positive experiences with the free version. And I would guess that there is a significantly higher number of people who make purchases after using the company's free antivirus in comparison to those who would just purchase the software outright before using it.

I agree with the basic premise of securing your computer properly and not being careless. Even though for most people the decision of what antivirus to use is one that rarely needs to be made, it is useful (in my opinion) to choose the best option for one's system at the time and then periodically (say yearly) review that choice to see if there are better options.

 

While these are undoubtedly important goals, the real money is not in getting free users to convert to the paid version, but rather in signing volume licensing agreements with enterprises - if you manage to establish your antivirus product as the de-facto standard amongst home users, corporate IT departments will come knocking on your door sooner or later.

IIRC, Malwarebytes didn't even have an enterprise edition until several Fortune 500 companies expressed an interest in it and they realized that their existing Pro version simply wouldn't scale.

 

Is it me or is this story just fishy....??

Read this quote and you tell me do you know this University and where is the link to the Univesity??

This is when I clicked on About Us for more info it tells nothing whom or which exact other info one can find. And weren't the Euro trying to force IE from Windows...so there is already some bias in the story to start with.

Also this line is also fishy as well...

In other words control group testing and this isn't a real time in your face everyday user "create a real-world" common give me a break...there so much missing a Virus would blow through this testing. We can do all the testing in the world and no one A/V will be better - it's which isn't a system hog or ad popup that instead of protecting it allows Virus to get through that should be the main focus but obviousness the headline of this story missed it when that is what this should be talking about it.

 

While not disagreeing with what you said, for me personally I feel my time is much better spent if I image my SSD on a regular basis, and then do a secure erase + load clean image routine if I ever run into any problems. Not only is this likely to be faster than trying to disinfect your system, but it virtually guarantees that you'll wipe every last trace of malware clean, so you don't have to worry about lingering remnants.

Regularly imaging the SSD has the added benefit of doubling as a form of data backup as well, so it's truly a win-win situation for me.

Plus usually I just let my imaging program do its thing while I grab lunch/dinner/take a shower or just anything pulls me away from the computer for a chunk of time, so there's basically no time "wasted" so to speak.