After look at Prevx website I saw they display a chart with what other AV’s failed to detect on their opinion.
This chart is useless because doesn’t have enough information to evaluate it, and I don’t know if this is a legal attitude from them.
I, and other user, already ask to Prevx support to explain that on Wilders Security forum, but every reply didn’t have any sense…
You can see it here, and on the next 2 pages…
-= ESET is myteriously one of the lowest… ESET has the best proactive detection, moreover, avast at the bottom…? I guess they’re just jealous…!! I love debates… Maybe, I’ll consider joining…
our user base is quite huge… no surprise that we are “too bad” in the graph…
i don’t know if PrevX is able to get the exact configuration of each AV product (running shields and their sensitivity), so the misses may be caused by the wrong usage of an primary antivirus
anything else is in the competence of PrevX, their marketing practices are not our bussiness
as far as PrevX does not break the law (in my opinion it’s legit but it makes a negative feeling to show the weaknesses of others rather than to show own advantages) there’s nothing to punish them for…
this only represents my opinion, i’m not speaking for our company now…
If you use these practices it will certainly backfire on you. This is building bad karma for them. A better policy is respect for competitors and a positive attitude towards the strong aspects of programs and tools.
We have a forum here where next to using avast, users are also advised to use many specific anti-malware tools and supporting non-resident av/anti-malware and analyzing products. We have friendly relations with geeks from friendly av forums, I know some also are active here even when they are not using avast themselves (I consider that as a big complement for the know-how stored here), we have many a contact with people that are official malware fighters from anti-malware forums and trained and qualified at anti-malware universities or now malware analyzers for instance for MBAM (miekiemoes). This has not worked out wrong for the avast webforum. I cannot say that off-course as contributor to the forum, but I think where anti-malware lore is concerned we are one of the better forums around, well at least I can say this I learned an awful lot here and found many a good virtual friend here,
I would say that is perfectly valid, when it comes as something in the region of a 70MB download, for a program which theoretically be (as) light (as a ‘Cloud’). This is over twice the size of avast, which is firmly fixed in Terra Firma…
PrevX only problem is that it has lot of FP and classify lot of stuff as way more dangerous than they really are …
there are many other concerns but i think the cloud (server side) analysis become part of most (or even all) security products in this category future …
I strongly don’t trust PrevX at all when looking at the forum website, because there are to many argument going on against the AV companies since Prevx suffers from many false positives for a long time since the version 2 and I am not 100% sure about the new version.
We all know Avast has done a fantastic job with the product all the Avast user are not complaining at all against Avast “agree”, so why should PrevX justified there own statement with there product against other software as I don’t see real hard evidence and proof at all.
Personally PrevX cannot show us real hard evidence and proof with silly policy to show how good is your product… No thanks.
Oh eeem GEEE!
I feel very very very sorry for Panda users T_T
In any case, thats too harsh and mean^^
-= I think, its very wrong for them to judge Panda according to the size trying to imply that “Compared to Prevx 3.0, Panda’s Cloud Antivirus isn’t even close”… Even with it’s size, I could say that Panda has a better detection since Cloud Technology was used than Prevx’s Cloud wherein most of files circulating are false positives…
