any comment on this test:
http://www.malware-test.com/antivirus.html
Having checked out the web site, I don’t see anything on how the tests were conducted, what was tested, what the samples were, etc. etc. so it is kind of difficult to comment on what are percentages effectively in isolation.
avast doesn’t have heuristics so if that forms part of the overall test then that will effectively count against.
Testing methodology:
http://www.malware-test.com/test_methodology.html
Chances are, they used simple virus test files, such as EICAR (http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm) to get their results.
As for a comment, IMO lab tests do not compare to real world experience. I used to be a CrapAfee user and switched to Grisoft’s AVG at a friend’s recommendation. The day I installed it, it found three different infected files that had been on my machine for months and were missed by McAfee. When I decided to try and find a product that would have a smaller footprint than AVG, I tried avast and it immediately found an infected file that AVG had missed. I’ll stand by that over any lab test.
Personal experience is achieved over much longer time frames, when I made the switch from AVG almost 3 years ago, avast found two viruses that had been happily existing on my system for some time.
These tests also only take the one AV program in isolation, not the additional applications you use to improve overall detection, like adding secondary on-demand scanners, anti-spyware applications, etc. I also noticed many of those programs in the test were Suites and there is nothing about what comprises the suite, AVG’s suite I believe includes the AVG-AS application that many of us use. In isolation the AVG antivirus regularly is categorised below avast in av-comparatives.