AV Comparatives July 2016 - You can do better ESET!

[Morisato 8]

hxxp://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

 

Real-World - 2016 - Feb to Jun - by value - 80 to 100% zoom

 

Kaspersky and Bitdefender are pulling ahead. Excluded AVG and Vipre due to impact score performance. Yes, 98% but I know you guys can do better and be on par with the other two. I've always seen you guys always stuck at the 98% range for some reason and never a bit higher.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Morisato

[dom1da 10]

if you look at the July reading it says 99.7 blocked 

[Morisato 8]

if you look at the July reading it says 99.7 blocked 

 

Yes I know but it's better to look at the overall block than just one month since those change constantly each month which says on some other months it has blocked less than the other 2 competitors.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Morisato

[Mr.Pr 0]

Eset did a great job but still is not the best

 

and i'm sure they are working on it

[TJP 143]

A test is little more than a snapshot at the time the test is completed..and as far as I'm aware several of the big name labs have special departments that are tasked with getting the highest scores in these tests so they are akin to VW's emission testing department

 

That said, I'll take 99.7% detection rate with zero false positives over 100% with 11, 4 or even 1 false positive(s). Plus I've found ESS is an AV suite that is very light on the PC's that I run it on; I can't say the same for a few of the other vendors.

[Super_Spartan 56]

In the past 10 years that I have been using NOD32, I never EVER got a virus and it even blocks bad URLs better than a firewall

 

Take these tests just as a reference point and ESET still did great. What's more concerning to me is when an AV gets 100% yet has a lot of false positives and/or interferes with my system and makes stuff not work properly.

[Marcos 5,298]

It's important to keep in mind that there's no security software that would detect 100% of threats; this would only be possible if virtually every file would be flagged as suspicious. This week I've come across a Filecoder decoder not detected by ESET that was detected by 35 vendors at VT. Surprisingly (or not? ), ESET and Tencent were the only vendors with zero FPs in the above mentioned test that didn't detect it.

[esetCustomer123 0]

Yes even though Avira caught 100%, I still appreciate ESETs low resource usage. There are tradeoffs. ESET, try and get that 100%

[Marcos 5,298]

Yes even though Avira caught 100%, I still appreciate ESETs low resource usage. There are tradeoffs. ESET, try and get that 100%

 

I'd like to emphasize again, there's nothing like 100% threat detection. There are security solutions that detect more threats and those that detect less threats in tests. Those that detect more and those that detect less in real. Those that have more FPs and those that have very little FPs. Those that react quickly to new threats and those that react after hours, days or even weeks. Those that have big performance impact on your machines and those that you don't notice running unless they save you from a threat.

 

At ESET we strive for the best in all aspects and do the best to be as close to 100% detection in real life as possible with the help of sophisticated mechanisms developed by ESET and included both in ESET's products as well as at ESET's backend.