Not a bad set of results, a few notable eye openers in the products beaten by avast ;D or should that be a number of big names not doing very well in this test.
Interesting test.
So, why did Avast not do better than it did in “proactive detection” and “response times”?
Another interesting thing to know would be how each compares to the other also in terms of resource usuage.
Any official word for this? ???
When they talk of proactive detection it is detecting malware that isn’t detected by the more usual signature. This is usually the preserve of the heuristic/behaviour type of analysis, avast doesn’t uses heuristics or behavioural analysis in version 4.8, but has generic and algorithmic detections which pick up malware that would otherwise not be detected by standard signature.
In version 5 I believe there will also be a behavioural module, which should when combined with the other methods improve detections of previously undetected malware.
The response time according to their legend was 4-6 hours, which isn’t bad (yes it could be improved), in fact it is right in the middle. Though I have no idea what exactly hey mean by response time.
Thanks. That’s very helpful info to better understand the results for Avast.
Avast is the only FREE AV to get high ratings. AVIRA premium has to be bought and doesn’t have the same features than AVIRA FREE ;D
Thanks. That’s very helpful info to better understand the results for Avast.
You’re welcome.
Though I have no idea what exactly hey mean by response time.
According to a post @ wilderssecurity.com someone said it is the time it takes to add malware to the databases
I honestly don’t see how they can calculate that as it certainly can’t mean ‘all’ samples.
Is it just me, or do these tests seem to change like the “flavor of the month”?
I never really see the tests that would matter to me.
Where is the …“System resource hog” test?
How about the “Incredibly over bloated virus directory downloads”?
And lets not forget the “User friendly or Confused look on your face” test.
I have talked with MANY users over the years, and here is what WE are looking for:
1: Easy of install/setup…This one requires no explanation.
2: Minimal system profile…Ok, we want a program to do its’ job without clogging up the works.
3: Simple, step thru gui with plenty of easy to understand options…We like to “personalize” our operations.
4: Regular updates that are seamless to the system, yet at the same time let the operator know that they happened…'nuff said here.
5: Ability to “adapt” to the programs used on the system…OK this one sort of goes along with #2
6: And of course, it has to catch nasties before they can do harm.
I think avast! has all of these covered so far. Thank you to the programming team for also keeping the service module profiles small.
Is it just me, or do these tests seem to change like the “flavor of the month”?
Edited as the comment does not apply (see Igor’s answer).
AV-Test isn’t paid by the AV companies - they get money from the magazines they sell the results to (and I’d say they’re quite trustworthy).
However, besides the fact that the AV detection rate keeps changing, the results also depend on the particular virus testbed (and the sources of the viruses) - so the results of AV-Test.org and av-comparatives.org, having different virus sources, are quite different (for example).
;D Well done avast and av comparatives results for August are out monday.
I have heard Norton 2009 is light and fast,but Norton has let me down way too often and the 2006 version made my computer run like a snail that was drunk!!!
Hope Avast keeps up the good work and a pat on the back to all Avast workers. ;D