November Restrospective Test Results

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/detection-test

Avast! participated this time, but came in second to last. Very surprised Panda was last.

 

F-Secure didn't do too bad. G DATA and AVIRA on the rise.

 

what the **** is qihoo? and how on earth it gets the first place?
anyways, congratulations qihoo. and congratulations avira.

 

These things are all over the place every few months you get a new one in first or last and it's almost impossible to predict.

With AV's it's one big crapshoot.

 

I noticed some other antivirus companies don't participate in this test such as Norton Antivirus. I was wondering what was the main reason for that? I'm glad that Avira is still doing good and with less false positives.

 

pages 4 & 5 of the report state the most common reason(s) for certain vendors not participating in this particular test.

 

Great job Avira, very good results as usual

 

One thing this test shows is that it's hard to achieve high results for proactive detection against new malware. [When I say high, I mean percentages in the 80-90 range.]

 

Woah Qihoo at the top for this test?
Kind weird, kudos to them (Yeah i know it's only 1 test but still isn't it surprising?)

 

Perhaps A-vast is ½-vast. Retrospectively, of course.

 

Well done eset.

Again , norton not there

 

Not to take away from Qihoo's first place finish, but they had 25 false positives and were down graded to advanced two star.

 

Well, they use Avira as engine, so it's not surprising that they do good. And if they have some definitions of their own to add to that, they will do even better.

 

This is the first Retrospective test where Panda Cloud Antivirus participates. Unlike Panda Antivirus Pro 2012/2011 which participated in the previous Retrospective tests and which achieved #2 rankings in two of the last three tests, Panda Cloud Antivirus has parts of its heuristics from the cloud. The 2012/2011/etc Panda products have all its heuristics locally. So therefore we think the difference might be in the fact that part of the heuristics of Panda Cloud Antivirus were not allowed to run in this test (as it is performed offline). AV-Comparatives said they would clarify some points about PCAV and Retrospective test in the PDF but I haven't seen it. Maybe they forgot.

Also it is a little strange or suspicious but this is the only independent test I know of which doesn't provide missed samples, so there's no way to verify if what was missed was actually malware or not. In all other AVC tests before they are published vendors have a chance of reviewing the missed files and usually (more often than not) some are discarded because they are not malicious. The reason given is that those same samples will be reused in the next test, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me as there are plenty other new malware coming out every day to make up the testbed for a test which is still 3 months from now.

Taking the above limitations into perspective we need to figure out if we will continue participating in AV-Comparatives Retrospective tests.

 

Ah good point, if PCAV had the Internet I bet it would have done great.

 

I think the retrospective tests are totally obsolete because all the products are tested without behaviour blocker / HIPS

 

HIi,

as far as i have seen, they wrote in their newsletter:

So it looks only bad in the listing as the really bad vendors are not included in the test. I rely on the AWARDS, not on the listing! I want to see the results of the bad vendors, too!!!!!!!

 

Great job Avira and Eset.

 

Will Qihoo continue to be as successful as in this test?
Remains to be seen...

 

Well it should because it would have all the latest detections that the other AV's didn't have.

I don't know about Avast....they should spend more time on detection instead of all the Bells & Whistles stuff. *Hey my AV is pretty and look at all these protection modules that don't protect me....

 

Just out of curiosity how many different AV products have you used/tried/fallen in love with in the past year or so?:-seem to have such a short "affair" with some that you can't really form a proper opinion?

 

Why Norton not there?

 

... because it's useless to test Norton without Sonar

 

I really don't see the point in testing products with components disabled,it has no real-World relevance IMO.

 

Good to see ESET doing fine as always