AV-Comparatives Forum

Hi, I said before in other thread that I had the intention to translate the final report from English into Chinese.

I'm happy to see that the report is finally released.

But this time I cannot transform its format into doc.

Can you kindly send me a copy of 09 report without the protection of the file, or a DOC one is OK with me.

Thank you~ My email address dirk0914@126.com

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for your great job. You had a lot of works this last month: several test reports to do. It is a success.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All !

Summary Report 2009 was nice but i found that only top three anti virus are ranked like first second third .The correct Reviews type ranking was not given like this
#1 Symantec
#2 Kaspersky
#3 ESET
#4
#5
#6 avira
#7
#8
#9
#10 Microsoft
as it was in detection rate test

Hello,
I want to ask
Can Microsoft SE detect unkown malwares?

Hi,

While I have the highest consideration for these tests and your methodology, I disagree with the "Antivirus of the year" award for Symantec. In previous years, the Poduct of the year award was decided on the results achieved in the four main test that you regularly perform (On-Demand and Retrospective tests). I think that including new aspects of the antivirus' performance and behaviour in determining who wins the award is a welcome addition, but it seems to me that if a product (NOD32 in this case) achieves a certification of Advanced+ in all four of those regular tests and besides it's the only one to do so, then it should be chosen as the Product of the year. Only if there was a clear advantage for other AVs in the remaining tests could it be argued that it should not receive the award. In my opinion, that advantage isn't there this year and ESET/NOD32 should have won, with Kaspersky second and Symantec third.
In short, what I mean is that not all tests should carry the same weight when determining which AV is the best of the year.
With that said, please do continue to publish these "new" tests since they give an additional perspective of the evaluated products, in particular the "Performance" and the "Dynamic" ones, which offer a more "real world" insight into the efficiency of these AVs.

thanks

Quoted from "city_zen"

Hi,

While I have the highest consideration for these tests and your methodology, I disagree with the "Antivirus of the year" award for Symantec. In previous years, the Poduct of the year award was decided on the results achieved in the four main test that you regularly perform (On-Demand and Retrospective tests). I think that including new aspects of the antivirus' performance and behaviour in determining who wins the award is a welcome addition, but it seems to me that if a product (NOD32 in this case) achieves a certification of Advanced+ in all four of those regular tests and besides it's the only one to do so, then it should be chosen as the Product of the year. Only if there was a clear advantage for other AVs in the remaining tests could it be argued that it should not receive the award. In my opinion, that advantage isn't there this year and ESET/NOD32 should have won, with Kaspersky second and Symantec third.
In short, what I mean is that not all tests should carry the same weight when determining which AV is the best of the year.
With that said, please do continue to publish these "new" tests since they give an additional perspective of the evaluated products, in particular the "Performance" and the "Dynamic" ones, which offer a more "real world" insight into the efficiency of these AVs.

thanks

Hi All,

I agree with the above comment as a IT consultant team manager, we do have more problem created by Symantec AV product with other vendors like simply, TrendMicro.

We found the Symantec EP AV cannot protect our client's servers in many incidents, it download signature and update process will crash itself and need re-install and many other small problem. And even in one incident in the year, they have a spyware cannot be detected which is almost 2 years old.

Anyway we are very upset with Symantec and we are moving our clients to TM.

Trend Micro has been left out yet again in the testing ; looks like Tm has chosen not to participate - I just found an interesting link on their site
http://us.trendmicro.com/us/trendwatch/c…arks/index.html
And so who are http://www.nsslabs.com/ and how reliable are they ?

Hi All,

To write "AV Product of the Year (2009): Symantec" is not compatible with the reliability and seriousness of
AV-Comparatives so far...

So, AV-Comparatives with its own test results were contrary:

Test February 2009 (On-demand comparative)
------------------------------------------
1. G Data AVK : 99.80% advanced
2. Avira AntiVir : 99.70% advanced
3. McAfee VS : 99.10% advanced+
4. Symantec Norton AV : 98.70% advanced+
5. avast! Pr.AV : 98.20% advanced
6. BitDefender AV : 98.00% advanced (1249537)
7. eScan ISS : 98.00% advanced (1249527)
8. Nod32 AV : 97.60% advanced+
9. Kaspersky AV : 97.10% advanced+ (1238060)
10. TrustPort AV : 97.10% advanced (1237704)
11. F-Secure AV : 93.40% advanced
12. AVG AV : 93.00% standard
13. Sophos AV : 89.60% standard
14. Command AM : 88.90% tested
15. Norman AV&AS : 87.80% tested
16. Microsoft OneCare : 87.10% standard
17. Kingsoft AV : 84.90% tested

Test May 2009 (Retrospective/Proactive)
---------------------------------------
1. Avira AntiVir : 69% advanced
2. Microsoft OneCare : 60% advanced+
3. G Data AVK : 60% advanced
4. NOD32 AV : 56% advanced+
5. BitDefender AV : 50% advanced (11448
6. Kaspersky AV : 50% advanced+ (11438
7. eScan ISS : 50% advanced (11429)
8. AVG AV : 45% standard
9. TrustPort AV : 42% standard (9605)
10. avast! Pr.AV : 42% standard (9535)
11. Sophos AV : 37% advanced
12. Symantec Norton AV : 35% advanced
13. McAfee VS : 25% advanced
14. Norman AV&AS : 23% standard
15. Kingsoft AV : 19% tested
16. F-Secure AV : 14% standard

Test August 2009 (On-demand comparative)
----------------------------------------
1. G Data AVK : 99.80% advanced+
2. Avira AntiVir : 99.40% advanced
3. McAfee VS : 98.70% advanced
4. Symantec Norton AV : 98.40% advanced+
5. avast! Pr.AV : 98.00% advanced+
6. F-Secure AV : 97.90% advanced+
7. BitDefender AV : 97.80% advanced+
8. eScan ISS : 97.70% advanced+
9. TrustPort AV : 97.60% advanced
10. Nod32 AV : 97.20% advanced+
11. Kaspersky AV : 94.70% advanced
12. AVG AV : 94.00% advanced
13. Sophos AV : 91.30% tested
14. Microsoft OneCare : 90.00% standard
15. Kingsoft AV : 86.40% tested
16. Norman AV&As : 84.80% tested

Test November 2009 Retrospective/Proactive
------------------------------------------
1. Avira AntiVir P : 74% advanced
2. G Data AVK : 66% advanced+
3. Kaspersky AV : 64% advanced+
4. Nod32 AV : 60% advanced+
5. F-Secure AV : 56% advanced+ (13084)
6. Microsoft Security : 56% advanced+ (13026)
7. avast! Pr.AV : 53% advanced+ (12341)
8. Bitdefender AV : 53% advanced+ (12302)
9. eScan ISS : 53% advanced+ (12302)
10. AVG Av : 49% advanced (11453)
11. TrustPort AV : 49% standard (11359)
12. McAfee : 47% standard
13. Symantec Norton AV : 36% advanced
14. Sophos AV : 34% standard
15. Norman AV&AS : 32% standard (7506)
16. Kingsoft AV : 32% standard (7412)


Symantec's sequence numbers: 4, 12, 4, 13

Symantec's values as the product classification: advanced+, advanced, advanced+, advanced

And Symantec won honors: "AV Product of the Year"

AV-Comparatives should be more careful from now on...

Kind regards.