Here is my test of Avast,Comodo and Avira vs.10 000 malware samples.
PART 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRreh8G4bLw
PART 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbtdeIFcTfc
Enjoy :-*
Your test is somewhat flawed as at the start when you purport to be setting avast to the highest scan settings, you are changing the sensitivity for the on-access Real-Time Scans, file system shield and not for the on-demand scans in the Scan Computer section. or for the ashQuick (right click scan) that you did in your test.
If you want the highest settings you would have to create a custom scan or if you are doing just a select folder scan in the Scan Computer section, as the Quick and Full System scans are pre-defined scans and there isn’t much that you can change in there.
Though in theory the ashQuick explorer right click scan is the most sensitive, but you didn’t change its settings either (image1), so effectively you wouldn’t have been looking for PUPs or the Highest sensitivity at all based on your video as you change the file system shield settings, which has nothing to do with the scan you did.
I also feel it a bit strange to use a early beta build for any testing, as you don’t know if there are any underlying issues that might have an impact. Since this test is also over 2 weeks old and avast 5.1.864 has now been released as a regular version release.
comodo win ;D
Interesting! :o
It must have no reason for excuses because it has the latest build and latest virus definition.
Missed plenty.
I hope Avast Team would check this.
@acafacaa, please test again what DavidR says about Avast settings. This would make final result.
Tnx.
As already mentioned a million time’s before you cant go on the testing’s of these amature’s, he set the wrong scan setting’s for for what he was intending to scan and by using an early beta release of the current version is not really professional or an accurate guide to go by, the people that keep believing in this hype and posting there replies about it all the time are inherently like sheep :
I don’t think it would increase detection and result dramaticaly even if I would move sensitivity to high,it would found a couple more than this,and that’s it.
Anyway Avast would be still behind Avira and Comodo. :o
So instead of trying to make assumption’s on what you think, why dont you get yourself a new stable release and test with the correct setting’s and see what you think then >:(
I really don’t see the problem here. Why the fanboyism? In almost all test conducted by different labs, Avira is ahead of Avst concerning static detection rates. Each program has its pros and cons. The real surprise is Comodo. Also in such a huge amount of files there could be always very old ones, such written for older versions of OS and so on and so on. Same things with on-demand I’ve seen with ESET - not very strong in on-demand scan results, but that doesn’t make it a bad program. So who likes and has seen the true value of Avast will keep using it regardless of all these numerous and very often useless tests.
Sorry but that is c**p, you can’t make assumptions, you can retest and make a statement but not an assumption. You essentially didn’t test for PUPs at all and you didn’t use the highest settings as in the other tests.
It is as simple as that and it invalidates the result of any test. If you can’t see that then you really shouldn’t be running any test no matter how unscientific armchair youtube tester.
Sorry but these test really are a waste of time, leave it up to the experts at accredited test centres.
+1 ;D
I honestly see little point in these scans/tests as it helps no one other than promote your youtube clips.
Unless you send the undetected samples to the AVs you used then it doesn’t help their users and I have to wonder as to the whole point of the exercise other than self-promotion.
Those last videos are not mine.Those are from Victorh,from Brazil.
And I’ll not get a money or anything else if somebody watch my videos,what do I get?Nothing.I was making that video for 5 hours,not because I want the money,anyway I have nothing from from that exept pleasure and I gave results to everyone.
I don’t care whose videos they are, the principles are the same who do these videos serve, certainly not the AV users. Results given to users don’t help them, samples sent for analysis and inclusion in virus databases are what help users.
If they don’t help the AV user then I suggest you stop wasting your time running the so called test as it clearly isn’t helping you either.
I agree with you, you lost a lot of time doing the test, but that isn’t the way an antivirus works, avast may not detect a virus while it’s packed(compiled) but it may detect it on execution(speaking from experience).
So the conclusion for this test is that Avira and Comodo found more while the executables were innactive.
Those videos shows which one of this has the highest detection ratio.
Those malware are from 1 day to 6 mounths old.
Thank you for good comedy, I wake up to good laugh today, thank you!! ;D :
10,000 laughs 
That’s the true man,someone can accept this,someone can’t.
Those are live malware and they are not old.
Someone is removing my post for the second time,and that’s not fair at all.I just posted some tests,some videos,and there are people who don’t like the results and remove the posts. >:(
I rely on sources such as the VB100 test. Avast and Avira both passed recent tests. Comodo has failed each time it has been tested.
I dont trust virusbulletin and AV-comparatives.
How do I know that one of the 43 Av companies did’t pay for that.
A lot of money is in game,don’t forget that.