One-time static detection tests are but one of many aspects to consider when choosing an AV, but when several such tests are reviewed over time, do help to narrow down the field of choices. You can review the VB100 test history for most individual AVs at this site. -----------------------------------------
Also of interest is VB's RAP (Reactive And Proactive detection) Test summary, which averages 4 RAP tests conducted between Feb- August 2010, and evaluates AVs effectiveness against recently released malware: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml
Results are presented in summary graph form, which plots Reactive Detection against Proactive Detection. The better performing AVs are found in the upper-right quadrant.
Because higher detection rates can be generated by any AV, at the expense of detecting more False Positives, all tests of individual AVs that included FPs were not averaged into these results, to level the playing field.
Comparatively speaking, Avira, Avast and MSE aquitted themselves very well in these tests also.
joe53
5 Journeyman
•
5772 Posts
•
17269 Points
234
0
Posted August 12th, 2010 19:00
Moral of the story: 2 engines are not necessarily better than one! :emotion-5:
And since Avast had no FPs, I think it is safe to assume all in GDATA were due to BD.