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.
|Product||malware on demand||adware / spyware on demand||false positives||scan speed||proactive detection||response times||rootkit detection||cleaning|
|AntiVir (Avira)||++||++ (*1)||+||++||+||++||+||+|
|AVK (G Data)||++||++||o||--||+||++||--||-|
|eTrust / VET (CA)||--||--||++||o||-||--||+||++|
|Fortinet-GW||o||o||--||+||++||+||n/a (*2)||n/a (*2)|
|WebWasher-GW||++||++||o||++||++||++||n/a (*2)||n/a (*2)|
|++ = 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|
(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|
|AVK (G Data)||99.9%||99.9%|
|eTrust / VET (CA)||72.1%||56.5%|
|Number of samples||1130556||83054|
Full testing methodology is here.
Read carefully what AV-Test did in past:
Since then I would not trust any of their tests.
by Michael K., 18 March 2008, 10:41
Thanks for your comment - the forum link you've posted is almost five years old though, and refers to an issue long since resolved between the parties involved - as detailed at the start of the thread (see http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=8912). Testing has improved greatly in recent years, and with the formation of AMTSO earlier this year, promoting cross-industry debate and higher standards for testing, the situation looks set to improve still further.
by John Hawes, 18 March 2008, 12:33
The test really catches
my eyesï¼the Rising AV product from China acquired a not so bad grade ,in my opinion.
by A learner from China, 01 April 2008, 03:54
would be nice to know product versions tested (ideally also build of db)
by Dwarden, 07 April 2008, 20:25
I find the measurement for response time confusing. <2 h? Less than two hours? That sounds more like a measurement which should be filed under scan speed...
by Paul Cocker, 28 April 2008, 18:18
Whoops, I understand it now, response time = time to issue new definitions in response to viruses, I thought it was an on-access measurement.
by Paul Cocker, 28 April 2008, 18:23
There is no specific data on whether these products were set to use the best possible detection settings, or default settings.
Please specify that here.
by kevin009, 08 May 2008, 04:56
Amazing results. Bit confused to what to choose and what gives better protection. It will be great if this AVs can grade according to the protection
by Srimal Fernando, 03 June 2008, 07:05
I have been using the free version of Antivir for over two years now and agree that it is one of the better AV products out there, but I have to say that I was VERY disappointed when the virus engine found BUT COULD NOT DELETE the "TR/Obfuscated.aul" virus. I do not know how Virus Bulletin can give the grade of "Good" for removale of detected viruses, when it clearly fails at this task.
Needless to say I downloaded the trail version of AVK - G Data and not only did it find the "TR/Obfuscated.aul" virus it found AND DELETED completely two other viruses that Antivir did not find.
So all in all AVK - G Data did find and remove viruses that antivir should have found and or should have deleted, which it did not. I found the AVK - G Data to be VERY slow, but I do not care how slow it is or how long the scan takes, as long as it does the "JOB" I expect a AV program to do. I would rather take a one hour break and let my AV program check my system COMPLETELY then having to format my hard disk drive and then taking a day or two to install and update my computer again. The choose is yours!
by MikelG, 04 June 2008, 11:45
I am agree with MikelG. Avira is speedy but not a good AV. one other example is it can not handle with ContraVirus spyware and such spywares. I used Outpost SS Pro 2009 to get rid of Contra and all its traces.
by Imran, 13 July 2008, 06:54
Looks like Trustport had the highest detection rate in that test which matches with the results in these tests also www.av-comparatives.org
by David, 09 August 2008, 02:54
What system or systems did these test results come from?
by Don, 09 August 2008, 15:21
I'd like to say I have been using Eset Nod since the beginning of the year because other antiviruses slowed down my computer while I did not feel the performance drop in my computer when using Eset its really quick and reliable. I'd strongly recommend it.
by Jason, 31 August 2008, 17:00
Interesting that the up and coming AV from China is doing so well. Don't most virus' and malware originate in China? Could these results in fact be because they are writing these to sell there own products? This has been a theory for most AV companies for years although I don't buy into that, I'm not so sure about this one. Could just be that virus writers are trying to help out there counties flagship AV vendor. Could just be that they think like there countrymen and know how to fight them. Could just be that good.
by ecold, 03 September 2008, 21:57
on 2007 nod32 was the best
i wrote an article depended on many labs results
which is the best Antivirus
this year, no software better than norton
by ahmed ali, 23 September 2008, 23:24
In case of AVG, do the results hold true for the free version? A clarification would be appreciated.
by pvsjam, 24 January 2009, 10:35
Comments are closed.