AV-Comparatives releases latest detection figures
Large collection test shows major improvement from AV giants.
Independent testing organisation AV-Comparatives has released its latest bi-annual detection test figures, with 17 products included in the field and a test set containing a massive 1.3 million samples.
The first set of results of 2009 showed notable improvements for major players Symantec and McAfee. While both previously lagged behind an impressive field in AV-Comparatives' charts, some excellent detection rates earned both vendors a position in the top four in the latest set of results.
Also significant in this batch of figures is the inclusion of McAfee's Artemis in-the-cloud detection component, which added significantly to the solution's performance: while the standalone product would have scored 95.2% overall, the addition of Artemis detection resulted in a score of 99.1%. The in-the-cloud component was included in the test by running the scan on the same day as updates for other competitors were frozen.
Some other 'offline' products managed scores well over 99% even without the support of online resources, with those from G-Data and Avira achieving the dizzying heights of 99.8% and 99.7% respectively, while Symantec, also without the benefit of calling home, came in a highly creditable fourth in the detection stakes, with 98.7%.
Newcomer to the test Kingsoft brought up the rear with a not unimpressive 84.5%, and was not far behind Microsoft's product, which showed some improvement on its previously disastrous AV-Comparatives test results. This time the Microsoft achieved 87.1% for straight detection and made the grade for the 'Standard' award - the product also demonstrated the best false positive performance of all the products on test.
Several aspects of product performance beside detection rates were also taken into consideration when calculating awards, including false positive rates and scanning speeds, and with all these taken into account, only four products were adjudged worthy of the coveted 'Advanced+' three-star award: ESET, Kaspersky, McAfee and Symantec all taking top honours for their overall performance. Another seven products were granted the 'Advanced' award, mostly marked down thanks to higher levels of false positives.
The tests were run in general with 'best possible' settings as recommended by the vendors, with the exception of Sophos's product, at the vendor's own request. The test sets contained some 1.3 million samples gathered in the past nine months, with trojans (71.5%) and backdoors/bots (19.9%) making up the bulk of the samples. The same batch of products should be further tested in the upcoming retrospective comparative, with results due out in the summer. Below is a summary of the results, for full details and more complete information visit the redesigned AV-Comparatives website here and read the full test report.
|Product||Malware on demand||False positives||Scan speed||Malware on demand||Award|
|Index||Malware on demand||False positives||Scan speed|
|A||>97%||0-3 FP||>14 MB/sec|
|B||>93%||4-15 FP||>7 MB/sec|
|C||>87%||16-100 FP||>3 MB/sec|
|D||<87%||>100 FP||<3 MB/sec|
your testing is the best. but avg has very poor malware detection rate.
by vijay ramachandran, 31 March 2009, 12:58
This sort of test just shows how the free anti-viruses dominate the paid-for versions.
Looks at Avira and Avast.. both free and have the top 2 results, and then you have the people who pay Â£40 a year for bloaty-norton..
Just goes to show you...
by Greg, 05 May 2009, 12:12
At me, ESET show much better result than Avast (free,home edition).
Also you need to add wath versions of AV are used during the test.
by Marko, 12 May 2009, 09:09
Hate to burst your bubble, but it appears that it isn't in order of effectiveness, but alphabetical. or else there one massive coincidence for all of the tested products.
looking at the rating column, ESET NOD32, Kaspersky, McAfee, and Norton all occupy the top spot, then Avria, Avast, et al. but the free ones are good if you know how to not be an idiot online, or have security in depth. where as those you need it, like the average user or corporation, will more than likely benefit from the $70(CAD) a year fee.
so as a suggestion for future reference, read the chart as a whole, not just the names.
by Sean, 16 May 2009, 04:18
Das Avira welches hier getestet wurde ist nicht die free Version sondern auch die Pay Version.Soweit zu dem Kommentar meines Vorredners
by Jochen Schenkel, 17 May 2009, 22:19
Well i m using Avira Premium Security Suite for months now and its working very fine for me...but there is only thing i didnt like and i.e. "If in configurations, The Heuristic Level is not set to High (medium as default) , then it will not be able to remove autorun.inf viruses from USBs... so it is advisable to set the Heuristic Level to High although it may give false positives but i only experienced this one so its acceptable.
Norton 2009 is also good.
by Shah Saad Hamadani, 18 May 2009, 08:12
All the AV's are good but not all can remove viruses like winlogo.bat or syser.bat, most of this AV had to have a DOS module, because for windows all we need that
by Miguel Flores, 23 May 2009, 15:57
AntiVir (Avira) A C B 99.7% Advanced
Avast! (Alwil) A C A 98.2% Advanced
Norton A B A 98.7% Advanced+
Greg, you're incorrect. You said "Looks at Avira and Avast.. both free and have the top 2 results, and then you have the people who pay Â£40 a year for bloaty-norton.."
Avira and Avast don't have the top two results. They're ranked at the top because they're listed alphabetically. You're wrong about Norton as well--though it is still overpriced, it's not bloaty at all. They scrapped the old one and built an entirely new streamlined version for 2009.
by webgrunt, 28 May 2009, 00:45
Avira is great. I use Avira Personal alongside with BitDefender Free Edition and Malwarebytes.
by victimized, 24 June 2009, 06:01
yes but how good they all are in removing malware
by jeremija krstic, 17 September 2009, 10:57
I think the ranking in this table isn't based only on the malware detection ratio as you can see NOD32 has less detection rate than Avast (surely not the free version was used in the test...) but ranks higher (A+) !
by Abdel, 03 March 2010, 07:01
nod32 leaks trojans as hell
I like avira and bitdefender.
Kaspersky and nortol lag pc.
by my thoughts, 13 April 2010, 06:19
Login to leave a comment