I also sent this company an e-mail that questioned the validity of their so called test and the ratings of Avast. Perhaps this might wake someone up, perhaps not, but at least they will know that what their report states is not factual to alot of Avast users. 
I also don’t get it how did they managed to put ESET’s NOD32 on 8th place!? And under detection efficiency it doesn’t get 4 out of 4 !? Every idiot knows that NOD32 has the most sophisticated detection engine on the market (100% detection in all VB100% tests). When i do the job,i do it thoroughly not like this reviewer heh ??? :
Here Is my Email to them:
Hello,
I do not know Why you rated Avast! so badely. Especially in the support area when all users Home OR Pro have a Forum to get help on at
http://forum.avast.com/index.php
and can email Avast directly at this email address
support@asw.cz.
Avast! Has won many VirusBtn 100% awards so why is it rated low on preformace?
I hope you will re-evaluate Avast! in the near future.
Assistant Editor of MacWorld Mag.
www.macworld.com
Back in November 2003, we had a post on this same site http://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=1801. It appears that nothing much has changed from these so called ‘reviewers’ since then. They still do not like Avast. :o
Hahaha… and take a look at this one (form the same review - link martik gave us in his first post):
It also would have a much better look if it was consistent throughout the package. For example, the "on-demand" scanner window has a nice interface which is intuitive and easy to use. Most of the other screens have a standard Microsoft Windows look and feel to them. Overall, it doesn't seem quite as polished as many of the other programs reviewed.
NOT POLISHED AS MANY OTHER PROGRAMS ???
Is he blind or just stupid ? Oh my God… Oh my…
I vote for stupid.
Actually, I originally thought they were bias for other reasons (like money). But after having a second look at the site, I realized they are just plain incompetent.
This review is more s list of statements, I miss the foundation of these statements. For each statement I read, I think: how did they come to this rating and to this conclusion. How do they measure?
This review is rated #11 in my list of reviews. 
I suggest that you read better founded reviews first.
I use a router and enable the firewall therefore no need for a SW firewall.
My understanding of a router is it effectively masks (stealth) all ports downline of the router, so blocking most/all incoming hostile traffic.
But what stops outbound traffic ??? not your router, unless it also has some sort of software interface?
If my understanding is incorrect I’m sure someone will correct me.
You say you enable the firewall, the Windows XP default one I assume? If this is correct then you need to cross your fingers as well as it is pretty basic at stoping outbound trafic. Many people recommend that you use a third party firwall rather than the XP firewall.
Perhaps you need to do a LeakTest at grc.com and confirm your router protects you from outbound traffic.
You are right my friend… hardware + software firewall = perfect combination
You have some Hardware routers/firewalls like Linksys, with outbound protection also… but alsways is good to use software too…
Cheers !
That site has
Bitdefender as #1
Here is virusbtn.com rating
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?bitdefender.xml
PcCillin as #2
Here is virusbtn.com rating
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?trend.xml
Avg as #3
Here is virusbtn.com’s rating
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avg.xml
and our AVAST is ranked 11th
again here is virusbtn.com’s ranking
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avist.xml
Seems to me that our AVAST can hang with any of those and outright trounce most or all of the 11 on the list. Futher proof that this review is CRAP!
We are loosing time with this rank… :-*
Ask to anybody is avast is the 11th or not 
;D :o
http://www.anti-virus-software-review.com/index.html
WHERE THE HELL IS IN FEATURE COMPARSION TABLE AVAST 4.1 ?
i answer myself, they NOT included it to make sure rest of AVs not looks like joke
(ok to be fair just most) …
I won’t bother writing them myself, but I’m sure others here still will (besides the ones who already have, that is).
One suggestion is to facetiously “compliment” them on apparently having invented what must be brand-new testing methods and benchmarks, since their results disagreed with just about every other third-party service’s assessment of not only avast but the others as well.
Scanning Capabilities Avast!Pro 4.1.396 Avast!Home 4.1.396
On-access Scanning Yes Yes
Realtime Scanning Yes Yes
On-demand Scanning Yes Yes
Scheduled Scanning Yes Yes
Heuristic Scanning Yes Yes
Manual Scanning Yes Yes
Script Blocking Only infected No
Scan Compressed Files Yes Yes
Auto-Clean Infected Files Yes Yes
Quarantines Infected Files Yes Yes
Email POP3 Protection Yes Yes
WebMail Protection Yes Yes
Instant Messaging Protection Yes Yes
Other Features
Password Protect Settings Yes No
Pass ICSA Tests Yes Yes
Integrated Firewall No it’s AV No it’s AV
Updates
Automatic Definition Updates Yes Yes
Automatic Program Updates Yes Yes
Manual Definition Updates Yes Yes
Manual Program Updates Yes Yes
Yearly Subscriptions to Definition Updates Yes Yes
Technical Support
Toll-Free Phone No No
Fee-based Phone Yes Yes
Email Yes Yes
Chat Yes Yes
Knowledge Base/FAQs Yes Yes
Product details Yes Yes
Supported Configurations
Windows 95 Yes Yes
Windows 98/98SE Yes Yes
Windows ME Yes Yes
Windows NT 4.0 Yes Yes
Windows 2000 Pro Yes Yes
Windows 2003 Server Yes Yes
Windows XP/XP Pro Yes Yes
Macintosh No No
Linux No *1 No *1
MS-DOS No *2 No *2
*1 - Avast use standalone product for Linux, VBA100%award
*2 - For this obsolete OS there is Avast! 7.5 , still updated
No mention this product received various VBA100% awards.
No mention this product support also various P2P programs.
No mention this product support critical PUSH update feature.
…etc…
- Avast help files is part of installation, reachable over F1 in AV main program window.
- Avast support forums actively visited by Alwil staff
- various types of tests for viruses are usually in rating very good upto 100%
- Your script blocking description is incorrect, AV must know this script flaw/exploit to
be able block it , so they can’t stop virus if these script definitions are not updated too.
Or You meant script blocker which totally prevent execution fo ANY Java, VBS, VM etc scripts?
Script Blocking Script Blocking technology monitors Java and VBS scripts and alerts users of virus-like behavior. They stop these viruses before they can infect a system without needing virus definitions.
Your site is now point of jokes for publishing awfull reviews.
P.S. Your miserable score for NOD32 (probably top1 AV in world) seems to be questionable too …
well let see if they learned theirs lesson ;D
Macintosh No No
and I want to see this Fixed SOON
Hello.
I recently read your list of Anti virus reviews and I’d have to say that
the review is total bogus (found here:
http://www.anti-virus-software-review.com/). I hate to inform you of
this but Grisoft AVG has only passed four AV “INW” tests, while Avast!
passed nine. To say that AVG’s scanner is much better than Avast is
totally bogus (VirusBT ratings here:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?). Another thing
is, Avast! has much more features than AVG, allowing real time scanning
of applications such as trillian, kazaa, DC++, etc. AVG does not offer
these features. Also, when AVG picks up a virus there is no automatic
removal, you must scan the entire computer to remove the virus while
Avast!'s resident shield can do it for you.
Another thing is you didn’t specify the entire amount of support that
Avast! offers you (which I know other people have already sent you
emails about). They have a forum, phone and email support. Plus, a
large group of dedicated users who are willingly to help at any time.
Maybe if your reviewer actually went to the Avast! website (which is
www.avast.com , please forward that to him) he would realize this.
My last problem with the review is the reviewer claiming that Avast!
looked like shit: “It also would have a much better look if it was
consistent throughout the package. For example, the “on-demand” scanner
window has a nice interface which is intuitive and easy to use. Most of
the other screens have a standard Microsoft Windows look and feel to
them. Overall, it doesn’t seem quite as polished as many of the other
programs reviewed.” Well, I’m sorry but when you rate an Anti virus
based on it’s look there’s a fucking problem. That comment really
pissed me off, because AVG looks like it’s from some Windows 3.1 -
blocky, disgusting and overall shitty.
Thanks for reading.
PS. I also liked how the reviewer did not know how to average scores.
Since when did getting 5 ratings of “2” result in an overall score of
1.5?, I also liked how in the review Ease of setup was marked as rated
3, while in the overview it was marked as rated 2. It’s obvious the
person who did this review is biased, and should be stopped from making
more reviews so people don’t miss out on great products, such as Avast!
As one of two avast! skin designers, I must interupt here… no one tried to rate avast! by it’s look. They just mentioned that as one of few other normal things that should be rated in all programs, not just avast! Let’s be realistic… GUI or Graphical User Interface is very important… very important. Maybe not to you, but to all others, that’s for sure. Just ask them, I’m 100% sure what kind of answers you’ll get…
Second thing - if you already answered to them regarding avast! look the way you did, you could also mention that their review maker forgot to take a closer look at avast! and all other features as changeable skins. I mean, if someone has all those privileges to review such a good product, he needs to know product that he reviews as his own palm… he can not make review and I’m 300% sure he doesn’t know anything about avast! forum , avast! skins download section, or any other useful part of this comunity…
As they already forgot, you could mention that there are some nasty, gamey, modern, professional, plain or neat skins in there… something little for everybody. Just try to find one thematic that is not covered by our skins. I think, we deserved that people find out about our hard work, at least…
If they said “avast! is ugly, no graphic interface, blah, blah…”, you could say this: "…no it’s not true ! avast! has more than 15 good looking skins. You just have to try them and find one apropriate for you…", and not “f**k the look of the program…”
You reacted on their review, so you could give them some directions.
Cheers !
My main point was though, that GUI shouldn’t have really been added into the ratings. Honestly, if you had a choice between a crap looking Anti virus and could find every virus, or one that looked great and found very few viruses which are you going to pick? (luckily, Avast! looks great and finds viruses :P)
Oh, his response to me was very fulfilling:
Forget Grisoft, what about the other products that are ranked higher?
Why aren’t you ranking yourself against the top products?
-sorry about the double posting.