AV Comparitives test results

[Ryan Hayward 2]

For some reason, AV Test have given Eset a 2 out of 6 for performance and Kaspersky a 6 out of 6.

WTF??

 

I tried Kaspersky just a week ago and it took forever for my computer to load up programs, games, etc etc.

Eset in comparison is a lot zippier and everything loads up almost instantly.

 

Why on earth would they give Eset a 2 out of 6 and Kaspersky a flaming 6?

I bet there are some secret hand-shakes going on.....

 

AV Comparitives in comparison has eset past the performance tests with flying colours!

Edited December 23, 2013 by Ryan Hayward

[Arakasi 549]

Can you provide a link to the test your referring to ?

[Ryan Hayward 2]

Here you go, buddy.

 

hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

[SweX 871]

The performance results by ESET has been like that for some time now in AV-Test, and I asked ESET about it why ESET was the second worst on performance in the test by AV-Test but Marcos never came back to me on that.

 

With that said, I don't take the performance part in the tests by AV-Test serious anylonger due to the performance results. If the results were true then I would obviously not use ESET, they don't reflect the performance I feel so they are simply off the pitch.

 

It's a real shame that AV-Test uses a score system from 0-6, instead of percentage like 0-100 and that goes for both protection and performance, it would be much easier to read and understand the test result that way.

Edited December 23, 2013 by SweX

[Arakasi 549]

Thanks Ryan for your post.

I think i have seen that test before and it really caused me to scratch my head, as the results dont reflect live scenarios i encounter everyday and the feedback we all get here on the support forums.

 

There is a chance we may get a response from ESET but, my senses tell me it will be similar to my own personal response.

 

I work at a computer shop that uninstalls and installs anti virus solutions for home and business every day. I have live experience with most of the top vendors.

[Marcos 5,074]

I, for one, don't know what's behind those tests. What matters to me is how users perceive the efficiency and performance of our products in real life  Anyways, I'll try to get more info about the methodology used in the mentioned, however, I cannot promise it will be possible to disclose more details in case the participants were binded by an agreement with the testing organization.

[chrlshlmn 36]

So true,I personally use my own experience on software.Yes other vendors scores seems higher,but for me on the scale stated I see eset as the best.Yes I have used other software as for now I'm totally sold on ESET.0-6 I rate ESET as a 6 and beyond.I really don't put too much into AV tests.

[Ryan Hayward 2]

Same here. Eset has always been super fast for me. Kaspersky on the other hand which scored much higher is so damn slow. I tried it just a month ago and I couldn't wait to get rid of it, LOL!

[SweX 871]

A Test is a Test...it is what it is and all that. Taking the product your're interested in for a test run is always the best thing to do. That's what the trials are for 

Edited December 24, 2013 by SweX

[TomFace 539]

Thanks Marcos, see what you can find out. Real world-seat of the pants feel is what is important to me. SS7 does its job with minimal input from me. Some tests are akin to running across town to save 25 cents on a gallon of milk. Never mind the 2 gallons of petrol you used up in the process.

[Pentode 13]

The ratings depends on how the test is done and method used. Browsing other test sites will show this, one particular brand might be highly rated whilst on another site shows it down in the bottom half.

 

I do question how these companies make their money, I don't just mean AV Comparatives here.

 

I know this is 3 years ago now, have you seen this? hxxp://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/ I don't know whats in it, the poor guy just may be upset about something I dunno, see what you think.

 

If NOD32 was that bad I'm sure I and many others wouldn't be using it, you can always test with Eicar test files, nothing like the proper thing I know, here's the link  hxxp://www.eicar.org/85-0-Download.html  should you try this take Eicars warning  you do this at your own risk.

 

Never tried it with NOD32 yet, feel I've no reason to.

 

Even searching for an Antivirus or Security Suite, ratings seem to vary wildly from site to site, I take no notice of the 'glossy' you see, even when buying hardware or anything else... if it does the job that's fine.

 

Dave

Edited January 5, 2014 by Pentode

[Arakasi 549]

Thanks Pentode

good read.

[Pentode 13]

Glad it was of use Arakasi..... the more I read that link the more I question the motive.

 

Trouble is these 'testers' don't all use the same method..... what would be the point if they did?? They'd all get the same result.

 

I can appreciate differing results you just have to, but not widely differing results, do they use the same viruses could also be asked.

 

Dave

[TJP 143]

For some reason, AV Test have given Eset a 2 out of 6 for performance and Kaspersky a 6 out of 6.

WTF??

 

I tried Kaspersky just a week ago and it took forever for my computer to load up programs, games, etc etc. Eset in comparison is a lot zippier and everything loads up almost instantly.

 

 

I'd love to see what settings were used for the test as KIS 2014 was terrible on my system - in fact I was so frustrated with Kaspersky I returned to Eset after 5+ years of straight KIS use. Eset is so light on system resources, I barely notice it I the only thing I use of Kaspersky's is Eugene's travel blog

 

As for the various tests and test results; they are great for marketing/fanboy wars but I see little practical value in them. After being a member of Wilder's since Nod32 version 2.5, I've watched the 'must have product' often become tomorrows also-ran because of a few test scores.

 

I rely on my online habits, boring as they are, to keep me safe. ESS catches what I miss or cannot see (e.g. a dodgy e-mail attachment).

[superssjdan 18]

I have never been huge on testing,especially performance type testing.Results are on a given machine and in a given environment,at a given point in time.Every pc environment is different.Every users habits are more or less different.While I am new to Eset,I am far from new to internet security,and have been using Webroot and or KIS for a very long time.There is no way that performance testing reflected at all as to what was going on one of my machines.I have found Eset's performance on my mainmachine to be signifigantly better on my machine than either of those other 2.The only thing I could think of is that their performance testing regimen places a huge premium on boot time,which to me is meaningless as I leave my pc on most of the time.I have found the best way to keep a machine safe and running well lies between the user's 2 ears.