Jump to content

Performance Test Results AV Comparitives


govind_ind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Every year the top spot in this category of test(along with false alarm tests ) is grabbed by eset (propably its been kept reserved lol ). No wonder millions of people rely on eset. It is the lowest foot print that eset has maintained for decades, running pc's butter smooth with extremely low false positives. Keep up the good work Eset. :)

eset impact.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This contrasts with AV-TEST's performance ratings on ESET products: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

ESET is pretty lightweight usually, but under certain circumstances it is really performance hungry, which might explain the distinction between results of different 3rd party testers. I personally think AVC should at least do some profiling on memory (swapping) behaviors and CPU utilization, or do energy consumption analysis, instead of just using a timer to do the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Most Valued Members
15 hours ago, 0xDEADBEEF said:

This contrasts with AV-TEST's performance ratings on ESET products: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

ESET is pretty lightweight usually, but under certain circumstances it is really performance hungry, which might explain the distinction between results of different 3rd party testers. I personally think AVC should at least do some profiling on memory (swapping) behaviors and CPU utilization, or do energy consumption analysis, instead of just using a timer to do the test.

Yet another reason why these tests, whoever they are conducted by can be quite contradictory to what another test shows.

Real user experience over a month of use will always give a more "sound" and true representation of the impact of any suite. Rushed tests always give rushed results.

Some suites might slow down things like photoshop or gaming for example , but not all users will use photoshop and likewise not everyone is a gamer. Why 30 day trials are a good thing as it allows users to try and see how the software suits "Them" personally, before making a purchase :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 1:45 PM, 0xDEADBEEF said:

This contrasts with AV-TEST's performance ratings on ESET products: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

ESET is pretty lightweight usually, but under certain circumstances it is really performance hungry, which might explain the distinction between results of different 3rd party testers. I personally think AVC should at least do some profiling on memory (swapping) behaviors and CPU utilization, or do energy consumption analysis, instead of just using a timer to do the test.

Passmark performs probably the most extensive testing on AV product performance. Their latest consumer product evaluation is here: https://www.passmark.com/reports/Consumer_Security_Products_Performance_Benchmarks_2017_Ed_2.pdf .

As you will note, Eset performed quite well.

Edited by itman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I would that that if anybody feels that ESET is not light on resources, please let us know and we will be glad to investigate what's going on your system and what could be done on your or our part to improve the performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marcos said:

I would that that if anybody feels that ESET is not light on resources, please let us know and we will be glad to investigate what's going on your system and what could be done on your or our part to improve the performance.

Large compilation task (e.g. compiling a gcc toolchain) under windows linux subsystem can easily raise ekrn CPU utilization and slow down the compilation process significantly, especially when compiled in multi-thread. Excluding the linux root folder in ESET settings ("C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\lxss\*") will rosolve the issue. Could you take a look at this issue to see if it is expected or not?

I think it is due to file monitoring. Disabling advanced memory scanner doesn't help.

Edited by 0xDEADBEEF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, itman said:

Passmark performs probably the most extensive testing on AV product performance. Their latest consumer product evaluation is here: https://www.passmark.com/reports/Consumer_Security_Products_Performance_Benchmarks_2017_Ed_2.pdf .

As you will note, Eset performed quite well.

In an IO bounded application, suppose copying a large set of files takes up 5% of CPU utilization without a security product. Now that with a security product, the CPU utilization is 30% due to realtime monitoring, but since the task itself is IO bounded, the time it takes compared to the baseline will not change much. This is a simple case that using a timer might fail to capture the extra utilization of a security product.

In a heavily multi-threaded context, this will start to be an issue since there is no enough processing power headroom for extra realtime scanning task. If you look at VB100's CPU and Memory util evaluation, ESET's number is OK but not the best.

Measuring the real resource utilization under multiple use scenario is a better metric. Actually, in a power-bounded scenario, the power doesn't even reflect the antivirus overhead. One needs to profile the energy consumption also to count in extra execution time overhead. I didn't see a comprehensive evaluation like this available online. Passmark eval's memory usage, but I am not sure if they count in the mem swap tricks some vendors use to create an illusion that their products are at least small in mem footprint. VB100 measures some CPU and DRAM utilization, but it is limited to idle and scan.

Those web browser vendors actually do better job in this kind of evaluation. Like what Microsoft did for Edge. They profile GPU and CPU utilization to optimize the power consumption.

https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2016/06/20/edge-battery-anniversary-update/#53vsYzRc1K8CcPMB.97

 

One thing I can say for sure is that ESET is doing really well in computer standby scenario since last year. The generated sleepstudy report shows that ekrn consumes nearly 0 energy during idle. This is in contrast to some other products I have tested before, which are also among "good rankings" in AVC's performance test.

Edited by 0xDEADBEEF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...