Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

1 Rookie

 • 

5.8K Posts

1308

April 15th, 2017 11:00

AV-Comparatives Malware Protection Test March 2017

Twenty-one security products, including free and paid AVs, suites and business end point protection were tested.

The Malware Protection Test is an enhancement of the File Detection Test which was performed in previous years. This Malware Protection Test checks not only the detection rates of the participating programs, but also their protection capabilities, i.e. the ability to prevent a malicious program from actually making
changes to the system.The test set used for this test consisted of 37,999 malware samples, assembled after consulting telemetry data with the aim of including recent, prevalent samples that are endangering users in the field. The tests were performed on a 64-Bit Microsoft Windows 10 Professional system. Both online and offline detection rates, and false positive detections are reported.

Results, in pdf format, are here:
www.av-comparatives.org/.../avc_mpt_201703_en.pdf

Comments:

All products detected/protected greater than 99% of threats. Not surprising, when so many samples were used, the majority of which would be known to the vendors.

The free AVs (Panda, Avast, AVG and Windows Defender) all held their own against the paid products/suites. Windows Defender had no false positives, followed closely by Panda Free AV with only one FP.

3 Apprentice

 • 

15.2K Posts

April 15th, 2017 13:00

Some more comments:

1) Panda Free did extremely well in the ONLINE aspects of this test --- even [a tad] better than avast/avg.   However, being a CLOUD-based antivirus, it was severely hampered when limited to its offline-only capability.   Anyone who doesn't have a decent internet connection (which hopefully is a rare condition nowadays) should keep this in mind.

2) The numbers for avg & avast were IDENTICAL throughout this test.   This should not come as a surprise, since avast acquired avg, and has been combining their background features, including sharing a common definition database.   Apparently, the only significant difference between avast and avg is cosmetic:  their appearance via their user interface.   avast/avg performed well even in offline-only mode.   But they did suffer from more than just "a few" false positives... which resulted in their test-rating being lowered to "advanced" (vs. Panda's "advanced+").

3) While Microsoft had no F/P's, its detection/protection numbers placed it in statistical "cluster 3", which clearly separates it (at least, in terms of this particular test) from Panda, avast & avg, which were all grouped together in [the highest] "cluster 1".

No Events found!

Top