http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-8/novdec-2013/
This is the first time I see Avast’s score this low in the protection, they were always on par with the big sharks
This doesnt mean that they are bad, they are under the line of the others.
Every AV-Vendor has a bad time with his products sometimes.
Detection/Protection rates of programs will differ on a daily to daily basis and so will other factors.
It also depends on the subset of viruses/malware that is included in the test. At av-comperatives http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php avast free scores better than many paid options.
Although I do feel this version has had more problems than I’ve ever seen in the previous versions, the latest (sub-)version/beta seems to fix a lot. The av-test is from December, so they must’ve used one of the bugged early 2014 releases. Plenty of people reported problems with the auto definition update. If this fails, especially 0-day protection suffers.
Yes all valid points.
I don’t put stock in comparatives for all these reasons.
My only reference point is Avast hasn’t let me down in over 10 years so I don’t know? 
I agree with schmidthouse.
But when you compare the OP’s link to this one avast looks pretty good. 8)
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php
Looking at only one aspect can lead to premature judgement.
That is why when I check a website/URL for malware, blacklisting or anything bad I rely
on more than one online web scanner.
edit: Modify
I’m not sure I follow that reasoning - protection against zero-day threats does not rely on signature updates. That’s why such threats are called “zero-day” - they are newly encountered malware for which no signatures have yet been identified or configured. Detection of 0-day threats relies on other methods such as heuristics and behavioral analysis.
I don’t understand the methodology used or know if these tests are purely on-demand scans or not. On demand scans don’t use the full functionality of avasts detection methods.
Agreed…I have trusted Avast for many years on “protection”.
I have more issues with the warts of the code readiness of Avast 2014 than anything else.
Hopefully the new BETA when released will elevate the level of this software to above it’s buggy level.
I think there are a lot of folks on the sidelines waiting to see how this rolls.
For “protection”…I still hanging in with Avast…why personally I’m waiting around.
Also, was on AVG for a long while…those guys blew it with AVG8 to AVG9 when they bricked so many PCs…never again for me there.
Norton in my experience is system PIG.
Seems the gold metric is Kaspersky…of course that is 100% pay service.
which is why I bought a 3 year Webroot SecureAnywhere license because it is so good in behavioural detection and 0 day exploits and doesn’t slow my system down like avast’s latest version does.
And no I’m not going to install a Beta AV
That’s your choice but the beta is actually more stable than the current release version imo.
There has been some very good improvements during this month and believe its just getting better and better at protection.
Avast did very well in AV-C and they got 3/3 stars in both real world tests.Although it really doesnt matter much to me I would still recommend if you have to consider avast’s performance then wait until 2013 tests come up.I mean AV-C march real world to come out and you will improvement.Btw,there is already tremendous hike in performance at AV-C.
But wait these guys are just using like 1000 samples but when there are like millions out there coming out everyday…So now you decide
those who want to follow the daily (live) detection can see here https://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats result will change from day to day
in lower left corner you can select statistic for day / week / month /…
always really difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of an AV! … which is the confidence of these results? moreover, for me the security of a system really depends from a lot of other factors: stating that 99% of threats nowadays come from internet, it really matters if your OS, Flash Player, Java Machine, Browser etc are updated… lot of threats can be blocked at that level!
Just a simple question. Everyone answer for humor’ sake so that it proves everyone in the forum is not only a geek.
Had that website declared AVAST as no1 product , and some one carried the report, how many would not have accepted that at face value and congratulated AVAST . C’mon guys…
Too much emphasis is taken on these companies? The results should only be used as a guide!
Ask your self, why are the differing results with different companies? It all depends on the method of testing I question how they make their money before their results - who pay’s their wages, do you?
If there was really a good AV it would be tops by ALL testing companies, it isn’t the case so why not?
I’m diggin’ in the barrel now but have you seen this about AV Comparitives I don’t know whats in it, http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/
You can tell a good AV from it’s forum… one thing I’ve noticed though all these write ups about AV they don’t tell you the FULL story do they they only tell you the ‘glossy side’.
So how do they make their money?
Dave
Craigb, wow !..I’ll give you kudos for honesty but are you reading what you are pitching.
You are advanced user and understand PCs/Software well…now look at this from the “general” user world that wants to install and have run. Avast9 IMHO was released WAY too early and the software itself is still on BETA…just too many critical issues. This isn’t some util software it is what people use to protect their PCs, their data, etc. It should not have bugs that require people to re-install O/S or break basic features like emails or provide BSOD dumps…should be more stable than that.
I’m still hanging in there with Avast guys and very pleased the “new” BETA (as opposed to the current released “BETA”) is better.
Clearly the Avast team is re-writing a lot of the code to address things and they are a very good team.
I can only guess there was internal pressure to release 2014 before it was ready.
I’ve converted one non-critical W7 64bit PC to Avast9…rest on Avast8…using it as a “BETA” PC to see/explore any issues.
It would help if you elaborated on the “issues”…
Actually I’m running what I’m pitching
I’m also just a normal user with a bit of common sense and follow instructions well and I believe the beta is stable enough for it to recommended as it has been for many people so far, all software has bugs which can be exaggerated by the huge amount of different system types and configurations that can not possibly be tested on all.
Other than AOS which didn’t work well on IE with the 2014.9.0.2011 version I never experienced any other problems neither did any of the other systems I maintain for family and friends yet now all those systems have now also been updated to the new beta they still function faultlessly and the AOS module functions much smoother on all of them which is why I have no problem in recommending users to upgrade.
…think the forum posts are doing a good job on that…
Bottom line is I think everyone has their “comfort” levels with new software releases…I use BETAs on many other software and firmware efforts…just not a piece of software that protects my PC. I didn’t jump to Windows 8…and now seems even HP is backing away from that. Anyway, things are progressing in right direction and Avast Team is addressing issues but “for me” Avast9 was released way too early.
If someone asks I will give them my opinion…just like you guys do…wait for this new BETA to be released and watch the Forum to see how it works with the “masses”.