AV-test.org issues latest figures
In-depth testing covers multiple factors.
Independent testing body AV-Test.org has released its latest set
of results, with a large group of products tested against a number of
criteria including proactive detection, spotting and removing active
infections, and outbreak response times, as well as simple detection rates.
![]()
The results show how companies and their products fare against the
latest range of samples arriving at AV-Test, with results of
checking new arrivals used to determine the accuracy of heuristics and the
efficacy of behavioural detection systems. Updates were also monitored over
the test period to determine when companies added detection for new items
not spotted using heuristics or generic detection. Detection and effective
removal of active malware, including rootkits, is also measured, as is the
impact on system performance.
As in AV-Comparatives' recent
figures, multi-engine products such as AEC's Trustport,
G DATA's AVK and the gateway scanning product WebWasher
all performed very strongly in the pure detection test, with Avira's
AntiVir also achieving very high scores in both malware and
'potentially unwanted' categories.
The multi-engine products showed their weakness when it came to scanning
times and false positives however, and also fared poorly against rootkits,
while Avira did well across the board, ranking 'good' or 'very good'
in all categories. The only other product to achieve this feat was
Sophos, with Symantec and Panda let down only by their
response times to outbreaks, marked as merely 'Satisfactory', and
McAfee also failing to excel in scanning speed.
The results of the tests are shown in full below.
Overall results
| Product |
malware on demand |
adware / spyware on demand |
false positives |
scan speed |
proactive detection |
response times |
rootkit detection |
cleaning |
| AntiVir (Avira) |
++ |
++ (*1) |
+ |
++ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
| Avast! (Alwil) |
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
o |
+ |
o |
o |
| AVG |
+ |
++ (*1) |
+ |
+ |
o |
o |
+ |
o |
| AVK (G Data) |
++ |
++ |
o |
-- |
+ |
++ |
-- |
- |
| BitDefender |
+ |
++ |
o |
- |
++ |
+ |
+ |
o |
| ClamAV |
-- |
-- |
- |
-- |
- |
++ |
-- |
-- |
| Dr Web |
o |
o |
o |
o |
+ |
o |
+ |
+ |
| eScan |
+ |
o |
o |
- |
+ |
++ |
-- |
-- |
| eTrust / VET (CA) |
-- |
-- |
++ |
o |
- |
-- |
+ |
++ |
| Fortinet-GW |
o |
o |
-- |
+ |
++ |
+ |
n/a (*2) |
n/a (*2) |
| F-Prot (Frisk) |
+ |
o |
+ |
+ |
- |
o |
o |
o |
| F-Secure |
+ |
o |
+ |
o |
++ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
| Ikarus |
++ |
++ |
o |
+ |
+ |
+ |
o |
o |
| K7 Computing |
-- |
-- |
o |
- |
- |
- |
-- |
-- |
| Kaspersky |
+ |
o |
o |
- |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
| McAfee |
+ |
++ |
++ |
o |
+ |
o |
+ |
++ |
| Microsoft |
+ |
o |
++ |
o |
- |
-- |
o |
++ |
| Nod32 (Eset) |
+ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Norman |
o |
o |
+ |
- |
+ |
o |
o |
o |
| Norton (Symantec) |
+ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
o |
++ |
++ |
| Panda |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
o |
++ |
o |
| QuickHeal (CAT) |
- |
- |
o |
o |
o |
o |
- |
o |
| Rising |
o |
+ |
+ |
o |
o |
o |
o |
+ |
| Sophos |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Trend Micro |
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
| TrustPort |
++ |
++ |
- |
-- |
++ |
++ |
-- |
-- |
| VBA32 |
- |
o |
o |
o |
+ |
o |
o |
+ |
| VirusBuster |
-- |
-- |
+ |
o |
- |
o |
o |
+ |
| WebWasher-GW |
++ |
++ |
o |
++ |
++ |
++ |
n/a (*2) |
n/a (*2) |
| ZoneAlarm |
+ |
o |
o |
- |
+ |
++ |
+ |
o |
Index
|
|
++ = very good |
> 98% |
> 98% |
no FP |
|
|
< 2 h |
|
|
|
+ = good |
> 95% |
> 95% |
1 FP |
|
|
2 - 4 h |
|
|
|
o = satisfactory |
> 90% |
> 90% |
2 FP |
|
|
4 - 6 h |
|
|
|
- = poor |
> 85% |
> 85% |
3 FP |
|
|
6 - 8 h |
|
|
|
-- = very poor |
< 85% |
< 85% |
> 3 FP |
|
|
> 8 h |
|
|
Notes
(1) the free (personal) edition does not include ad- and spyware detection, so the results would be "--"
(2) not available (this is a gateway product)
Detection rates for malware, adware and spyware
| Product |
Malware samples |
Adware and Spyware |
| AntiVir (Avira) |
99.3% |
99.1% |
| Avast! (Alwil) |
98.8% |
97.9% |
| AVG |
96.3% |
98.6% |
| AVK (G Data) |
99.9% |
99.9% |
| BitDefender |
97.8% |
98.8% |
| ClamAV |
84.8% |
82.4% |
| Dr Web |
90.4% |
92.8% |
| eScan |
96.7% |
92.1% |
| eTrust / VET (CA) |
72.1% |
56.5% |
| Fortinet-GW |
92.4% |
91.2% |
| F-Prot (Frisk) |
96.7% |
92.0% |
| F-Secure |
96.8% |
93.5% |
| Ikarus |
98.0% |
98.8% |
| K7 Computing |
65.5% |
59.5% |
| Kaspersky |
97.2% |
92.0% |
| McAfee |
95.6% |
98.6% |
| Microsoft |
97.8% |
91.5% |
| Nod32 (Eset) |
97.8% |
96.3% |
| Norman |
92.8% |
91.9% |
| Norton (Symantec) |
95.7% |
98.6% |
| Panda |
95.6% |
95.6% |
| QuickHeal (CAT) |
85.7% |
86.7% |
| Rising |
94.1% |
95.9% |
| Sophos |
98.1% |
98.8% |
| Trend Micro |
98.7% |
95.1% |
| TrustPort |
99.6% |
99.8% |
| VBA32 |
89.9% |
92.1% |
| VirusBuster |
76.2% |
77.8% |
| WebWasher-GW |
99.9% |
99.9% |
| ZoneAlarm |
96.4% |
94.5% |
|
| Number of samples |
1130556 |
83054 |
Full testing methodology is here.
Tags:
av-test, testing.
Posted on 13 March 2008 by Virus Bulletin.
16 comments.
del.icio.us 
digg this
