On Demand Comparative...

General Topics
1

… by AV-Comparatives arrived. → http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/detection-test

With a total of 403.543 samples (not older than last 6 months) of various types of malware to find, the AV’s performed well (most part).
Gonna talk specially about avast! (the tested version was 5.1) since we are on avast! forum and i’m an avast! user.

Detection was good (98.4%) and it is on top 3 but then the false positive disappointed me.
It grew from 8/9 fp’s to 19 fp’s and passed to the “many” category.
That’s why avast! didn’t received the Advanced+ award.
On speed, avast! is still unbeatable with 16.3 MB/s (average) against the second place (Panda) with 13.2 MB/s (average).

Overall: Good. Detection can be better but FP’s can’t also raise.

Take your conclusions and discuss.

2
  1. conclusion: 5.1 is old version.
  2. discussion: closed.
3

@Zyndstroff

I’ll advise you to read the comparative carefully before make any unnecessary commentary.
Under Pag. 4, and after the 2, you’ll read: "Avast submitted version 5.1 for testing. The on-demand detection rate of avast version 6.0 would be the same (confirmed also by Avast).

4

@Silk0: “Avast asked to get tested with heuristic set to high/advanced”

Maybe this is the reason that avast got many FP…

5

In fact the results are incredible despite few false positives. But since even NOD32 had them just as many and it’s in general a very low FP AV, i think avast! scored really well.

It has the 3rd best detection rate, if you look at FP’s it only had 15 of them and in performance department it was a clear winner significantly ahead of all the rest. And all that with old 5.1. Can’t wait for proactive tests with version 6.0…

@claudiuc
I’ve had and still have avast! 6.0 always set to High heuristics and i haven’t had a single false positive on any of my systems because of it. So i guess they aren’t too aggressive.

6

Oh yes… sorry for being too damn fast.
You’re right.

7

Congratulations!
Good detection rate. Excellent scanning speed.

8

Great result. Congratulations to avast! team!
This time avast beats Avira in detection and speed… 8)

9

Great detection rates… Congrats to avast team…

Got 3 place in detection… Nice to see… :smiley:

10

Congrats for avast antivirus,

Avast only missed in term of False Positives, but not in terms of speed scanning and detection of the threats.

11

And even false positives are mostly stuff that users often won’t even (ever) see on their PC. As i always say, i don’t mind false positives on non critical system files for as long as that gives me a chance to detect more of the real malware. Considering there are restrictions in place for system files being flagged as malware when they aren’t (FP’s) i think that’s a quite safe bet. Of course i’d love to see 0 FP’s in such tests but it’s not end of the world if it got few of them either.

12

Hi RejZor,

Yes, you are correct that’s way AV-Comparative more prefer for each users tested by themselves (see page 11, on the below page)

Back to how the user use in their system, and how the user treat their system as well.

cheers,

13

frankly, who of you actually uses any of the packages marked as FP here? my guess is - nobody… and I would also bet that you haven’t even heard about such software… almost none of these FPs have been reported to us by our (130M users) community

14

So, like RejZor said, better some eventually false positive (on non system files) than a worse detection rate.

15

We don’t need to care those FPs that detected by avast! in AV-C test because those FPs were submitted to avast! lab.Thanks to AV-C for their kindness. ;D

16

Congratulations.
The detection rates are pretty high, Great Job.