Big German Magazine Pc-Welt Fakes Test Results Of Av-Test // Großes Deutsches Magazin Pc-Welt Verfälscht Testergebnisse Von Av-Test

[rugk 397]

Because this topic is about a German magazine a German translation for this is available below the English version. But for replying to this please reply in English. (but If you want you can of course add a German translation to your post)

 

English:

It's about the following online article from PC-Welt (the German version of PC-World):

• original German site
• English version, translated with Bing Translator

How you can read there, ESET was quite good with the protection against malware, but several times the article says that there would be a dramatically loss of performance:

(the quotes are loosely translated from the German article, in the article or below in the German text you can find the original ones)

But when copying 7.4 GB files, you can see that the programmers at Eset and especially Trend Micro were overstrained with their task. [...] With the Eset-Guard it takes over 40 Seconds, Trend Micro expands this even to more than seven-and-a-half minutes (470 Seconds).

Trend Micro fails all along the line and ESET spoiled it's good malware protection with a copying brake.

 

You can also see this in the table. (there are points, no seconds!) I marked ESET there with orange, the red mark is important later.

(This picture is taken from the Bing translated article, the original table you can find in the article or in the German text below)

 

But beause ESET is known for a a little system load, I couldn't believe it.

So I looked at the official test results at AV-TEST. There you can download the Mac OS X test results at "Home User" in an Excel-file.

 

And behold:

 

So there you can see clearly that ESET, that ESET doesn't needs 40 seconds, but only 19 seconds.

But another product needs 40 seconds and this is the red-marked Microworld eScan for Mac. And if you now look at the table from PC-Welt, then you can see there 5 points for the copy duration!

 

So it seems to be clearly that PC-Welt mistook ESET for Microworld and the other way round. But this turns 4 places out. And by the way: ESET also had a better protection than Microworld in this test.

 

---

German:

Es geht um folgenden Online-Artikel ("18 Schutzprogramme für Mac getestet") von PC-Welt (die englische Variante ist PC-World):

• Originale deutsche Seite
• Englische Version, mit Bing Translator übersetzt

Wie dort zu lesen ist, hat ESET zwar mit der Erkennungsleistung gut abgeschnitten, aber an mehreren Stellen wird der angeblich Performance-Verlust heftig kritisiert:

Doch schon beim Kopieren der 7,4 GB Dateien hat sich gezeigt, dass die Programmierer bei Eset und vor allem bei Trend Micro mit ihrer Aufgabe überfordert waren. [...] Mit dem Eset-Wächter dauert das Kopieren über 40 Sekunden, Trend Micro verlängert die Aktion sogar auf mehr als siebeneinhalb Minuten (470 Sekunden).

Während Trend Micro nahezu auf der ganzen Linie versagt, hat sich Eset seine an sich sehr gute Erkennungsleistung durch die Kopierbremse verdorben.

 

Dies wurde auch in der Tabelle deutlich. (dies sind Punkte, keine Sekunden!) ESET habe ich darin mit orange markiert, die rote Markierung wird später wichtig.

 

Da ESET aber bekannt für eine geringe Systembelastung ist, konnte ich dies nicht glauben.

Also schaute ich auf die offiziellen Testergebnisse bei AV-TEST. Dort kann man unter "Privat" die Mac OS X-Testergebnisse als Excel-Datei herunterladen.

 

Und siehe da:

 

Und hier sieht man eindeutig, dass ESET nicht 40, sondern nur 19 Sekunden zum Kopieren benötigt.

Aber ein anderes Produkt braucht 40 Sekunden und dies ist das in rot markierte Microworld eScan for Mac. Wenn man jetzt in die Tabelle von PC-Welt schaut, sieht man dort eine Punktewertung von 5 Punkten!

 

Es scheint also eindeutig, dass PC-Welt ESET und Microworld einfach mal verwechselt hat. Dies macht in der Tabelle allerdings 4 Plätze aus. Und nebenbei sei noch bemerkt, dass ESET in dem Test auch eine bessere Erkennungsleistung also Microworld hatte.

 

Nebenbei: Die Kopierleistung von Trend Micro stimmt mit dem Original-Testbericht überein.

Edited September 4, 2014 by rugk

[SweX 871]

Yes it's a Mac AV test, so we can't compare them to the Windows equivalent products.

 

Afaik Panda is using the Intego AV engine. And Norman recently started using the Bitdefender engine in their Windows product so I assume it's the same for their Mac version as it scores similar to Bitdefender. Not sure about the others.

 

Here is an English article about it: hxxp://www.zdnet.com/tests-compare-mac-os-x-anti-malware-products-7000033178/

Edited September 4, 2014 by SweX

[rugk 397]

Yes it's a Mac AV test, so we can't compare them to the Windows equivalent products.

You are talking about this, aren't you?

But because ESET is known for a a little system load, I couldn't believe it.

OK you may right, but the topic of this topic is very different.

 

Afaik Panda is using the Intego AV engine. And Norman recently started using the Bitdefender engine in their Windows product so I assume it's the same for their Mac version as it scores similar to Bitdefender. Not sure about the others.

For this look at the official test results from AV-Test.

 

Here is an English article about it: hxxp://www.zdnet.com/tests-compare-mac-os-x-anti-malware-products-7000033178/

Thanks for the link, in this article I found no errors. It's a quite good article IMO.

Edited September 4, 2014 by rugk

[rugk 397]

I also reported this to the German ESET distribution and they want to clarify this.

Edited September 4, 2014 by rugk

[SweX 871]

 

Yes it's a Mac AV test, so we can't compare them to the Windows equivalent products.

You are talking about this, aren't you?

But because ESET is known for a a little system load, I couldn't believe it.

 

Ok you may right, but the topic of this topic is quite a different.

 

Afaik Panda is using the Intego AV engine. And Norman recently started using the Bitdefender engine in their Windows product so I assume it's the same for their Mac version as it scores similar to Bitdefender. Not sure about the others.

For this look at the official test results from AV-Test.

 

And thanks for the link. I will look into it. (Hopefully they made it right there...)

 

 

1. Yes i'm talking about this

 

2. You quoted yourself. 

 

3. I have checked the website but I fail to find the test on their site. 

Edited September 4, 2014 by SweX

[Tommi Uhlemann 5]

(Managed to find my login credentials)

 

1. Yes, we are taking care of this

2. ESET Deutschland is an official ESET branch and not just a distribution anymore

3. Thank you very much for reporting this!

[rugk 397]

1. OK.

2. Yes I know. My own quote was related to "You are talking about this, aren't you?". "Ok you may right, but the topic of this topic is quite a different." is for you.

3. The link is in my huge start post.

[rugk 397]

(Managed to find my login credentials)

 

1. Yes, we are taking care of this

2. ESET Deutschland is an official ESET branch and not just a distribution anymore

3. Thank you very much for reporting this!

Thanks, I didn't knew that you are in this forum.

 

2. Yes, yes...

[Tommi Uhlemann 5]

I almost didn't remember myself, but your mail reminded me to check again - I'm not here that often, though...

[SweX 871]

@Tommi

 

Good to hear that. Hopefully it'll be sorted out.

 

@rugk

 

Yes but I didn't find their test online on their site, like they usually publish the Win tests no need to download anything. But it seems you have to download the file to see the test.

[rugk 397]

@SweX yes you're right. I also couldn't find it. And also their Twitter post only links to the page I linked too.

So you have to download it.

Edited September 4, 2014 by rugk

[rugk 397]

So I looked again at the article and PC-Welt has corrected it yesterday (2014-09-05). They replaced ESET with MicroWorld and ESET is on the 5^th place.

 

In der Kalkulationstabelle waren die Resultate für die Bremswirkung mehrerer Produkte um jeweils eine Position verrutscht. Durch die Korrektur dieses Fehlers ergibt sich eine signifikante Veränderung der Reihenfolge. Wir bitten diese Panne zu entschuldigen.

 

loosely translated:

In the table were slipped some results of the brake action of some products. Because of the correction of this mistake the order has significant changed. We ask you for apologizing this glitch.

Edited December 22, 2014 by rugk

[SweX 871]

"Apology accepted"  

Edited September 6, 2014 by SweX

[rugk 397]

Just FYI now there is also the "normal" report from AV-test about this test online:

 

hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/mac-os-x-in-the-crosshairs-18-malware-scanners-put-to-the-test/