http://www.av-test.org/ says that Avast has a very poor protection. Only 3 out of 6 points. Why is avast so bad in their tests? Are there other test that show that avast has still a good protection?
Similiar questions posted a million times… at evry new test … search forum and see
And result vary from test to test …
With AV-Test, it depends on which OS you are using too. Windows 7 has the 3, which is hardly very poor but Windows 8 (and Vista) have 3.5, better than average in most cases. It also scored 5 and 6 in other areas.
It also depends on who is doing the testing.
See here with Dennis Technology Labs, another major AV tester, specializing in real world testing:
http://www.dennistechnologylabs.com/reports/s/a-m/2014/DTL_2014_Q1_Home.1.1.pdf
Here Avast did better than any free antivirus including Avira, Avg and it even did better than Bitdefender and Trend Micro.
Avira, which scores very well with Av-Test, gets a terrible “B” rating here. Now that is very poor.
Avast also scores very well with users on sites like download.net.
I have tried the other free antiviruses and Avast by comparison is the lightest on resources, especially with a little tweaking, and has the best interface and support. For me, my system is faster with it than when i was using resource lite MSE, which is probably a good example of a very poor antivirus. In the end though, safe computing is what will keep you virus free no matter what rating your AV has. That and running MBAM occasionally to make sure all is clear. I’d like to see Avast have higher numbers - 100% would be great. But on balance so far it works excellently in my opinion. My only concern with it has been “ad pop ups”, but so far it has been very minimal and the AV runs like a dream.
Exactly, I never hear about Dennis Technology Labs before. But I’ve heard about AV-Comparatives, check their real-world tests: http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/
Here’s the monthly results in a sortable easy way to compare different months of testing: http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php
This year alone, Avira, and most definitely BitDefender have easily beat Avast, which has scored badly for some time already. Check the other tests too.
BTW. Your PDF link does not work.
statistic
week. https://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats
year. https://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusDailyStats
two year. https://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusTwoYearStats
tree year. https://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/VirusThreeYearStats
The bottom line is have you been affected ? I.e. did the supposed poor performance allow a virus to get on your system. At the end of the day that is the only worthwhile report, your experience
Well, personal experience can be pretty much rated 100% or 0%, either you get a malware or not. That’s not a very helpful measurement. Let’s say you use the crappiest AV in the world, you use it for 3 years and no infection. Is that AV then secure and trustworthy based on your experiences? Yes. But in reality no. Let’s say that the user continues to use it, and 3 years 1 day, a malware hits hard. Secure AV based on your exp.? No, and in reality no. That’s why the tests play a big role. It’s the percentual of how secure you’re with an AV that has meaning. We have these “real life” tests from different test makers. You’re not 100% safe with any AV, but the odds of getting an infection vary with different vendors according to varying tests. One should make a decision by the aggregate of these different tests & testmakers.
OK but I can put about 10 years of Avast with zero infections as pretty good… And I do conduct some dodgy research in my job. But having said that I do not think that there is one AV that I have not had to clean up after. The biggest problem is the user
Edit: please ignore.
They altered the report link:
http://www.dennistechnologylabs.com/reports/s/a-m/2014/DTL_2014_Q1_Home.1.2.pdf
This is a subject which brings on too much debate.
The bottom line is how well an anti-virus protects you and your machine.
Those so called “tests” are not worth looking at. I cannot, and I doubt you
cannot, completely duplicate the same results.
The “only test” I rely on is that I’ve been infection free for several years.
The only true “real world” test is with the user and not some laboratory.