That’s enough M.Richter, I’ll take a extremely dim view of any further cross-topic pollution in this topic or any other… no matter how tenuous or clever you think it might be. There will be no further warnings. >:(
PS Be advise, I posted this as a Moderator. So, if you wish to discuss it with me then please PM me, do not post (reply) in this topic. If you wish to talk/complain to another Moderator (again by PM) about this post then you’re welcome to do so.
I have no proof that they take money equally from each vendor. Do you have that proof?
this is how you spot a fake one
are they claiming to be “independent” while getting money from Antivirus vendors…if not then not fake 
its just an end user doing his tests…not a company who makes living on charging AV vendors
we have not seen them to be hiding information or pretending to be indepedent etc etc…no reason to doubt them…
I know it is not entirely comparable. OK Melih, i am agree with Thank you for explaining your view
why not ask other AV vendor.
they most likely can’t reveal due to agreements they sign with AV-comparatives.
This is the problem with AV-Comparatives.org, they are not transparent, they are not certified, they are not audited and noone has ever validated their test results 
Be fair and not fool. That was already clear and statet so many times - it’s at least written in methodology. So in real it is misinformation to claim they don’t tell it at all.
New facts ? Proofs please - what to they earn? What about there life. Please let us take part in you insights. Or are that just new poor imputations?
Did you not know this before you paid them to test Comodo…
Mind your manners please.
I’m assuming, coming from yourself, that this is meant to ironic? Clear? Let’s see.
I guess it might have been if Melih had claimed that. However what Melih said was this…
… and to put it bluntly, that doesn’t mean what you said it did. Does that topic of AV-C’s where they were not open about their funding (to be kind) need to be cited once again? Seriously?
I don’t pretend to be independent while getting money from AV vendors. AV-comparatives do!
AV-comparatives.org misleads people, they are not transparent until they do, they do not deserve public’s trust.
So you write faster than you can prove?
Twisting and turning, like it might fit best.
IF a candidate would get the offer to pay extra, how could he be sure that he is the only one with that offer? Why should he join such a test lottery?
They, in contrast to your business, live from the reputation of their antivirus (if its not a free product). Do you think, they would risk all for a few percent in a random test?
Wouldnt make any sense.
Btw, is an audit like a big brother, who would see any dollar which would change hands in the future? What would make you more sure then?
And the audit gets paid. Would get paid by av-c. We have to take the result with a lorry full of salt! 
… Same if you would pay for it.
Or do we have to read the reputation methodology of that av-c auditer first, to understand how it works?
Before the “public” would come around and read about your investigations assumptions, the vendors wouldnt pay av-c anymore allready if there are reasons for doubts.
I dont know if files which get send to your cloud are not read by people. Does that mean, i should run around and say:
You can not trust comodo cloud, because they COULD read your files!
If i would agree with your “technic” of prejudice, doing this would be totally logic. … Of course, until you pay for an audit of your cloud. But wait, did the audit get paid by you?
“They most likely”
I am totally convinced. 
Just call them.
You reveal in the “public”, and the sky didnt fell on your head. And now you say, but a call CANT be done.
(All this was just about your argumentation strategy.)
Because we all use Comodo and we dont need to proof how good he is. :-TU
May I politely suggest that you read up on this subject matter before posting here. It may mitigate some possible assumptions and various quantities of sodium.
Big Four (audit firms) [wikipedia.org]
I’m not sure it does. Some of your arguments seem to be based on apparent misunderstandings on words and phrases. For example…
This response was based on the following cited quotes…
… and specifically the quoted phrase “they most likely”. And yet there is nothing wrong with Melih’s statement, it is entirely accurate and contains no errors and omissions. But, you seem to have managed extract a completely different meaning and conclusion from it.
The phrase “most likely” simply means that a definitive or authoritative statement cannot be made (this is true). There is really nothing to be convinced about, unless you believe that a definitive and/or authoritative statement could have been made.
The conclusion of “but a call CANT be done” is erroneous in a couple of ways. Firstly, Melih did not say this (although, in my opinion, it almost is!). Secondly, “Just call them”… the I idea of Comodo calling all 20 AV’s to see if they would disclose something it was suspected the AV had agreed not to even acknowledge because the “sky didnt fell[fall]” on Comodo is, at best, somewhat unrealistic.
So, what’s my point? I think you could be confusing Melih (and other readers, including me) here. I believe you should take much more care, both on your interpretation of others posts and the possible meaning of you own. There’s nothing wrong with seeking clarification of someone else’s post. I do it.
???.. Yes! Thats true! But your answer does not matches with what i mean before!
You speak out of the context.
But it is/was my mistake, now i know here is the wrong topic to discuss this.
Pls split these posts to another topic in order to keep this thread clean as per the OP would have wanted and in the interest of public.
thanks
I think I’ve finally had enough… again!
I won an Avast Internet Security license last December, renewal is due next week and I have to decide whether to continue with it. The fact that CIS 5.8 ‘cmdagent.exe’ keeps crashing on my test PC during scans vs nearly 12 months of smooth and painless protection on my main PC with Avast already had me erring away from CIS but this erratic attack on AVC (anyone taking bets on who will be next?) has been the clincher.
Worried when Avast scored poorly in AVC test, I looked on their forum.
Quite a contrast. Takes issue with the methodology but concedes that Avast will have to do better.
Why not just blame it on the other vendors for paying more than Avast for better results. But he can’t say that, can he, because all the participating AV vendors have formed a secret cartel by which they draw lots to see who will get the best score this month, so its their turn to be last and cop it sweet.
PS. I don’t think this makes me an Avast ‘fanboy’. Hang on, just checked my underpants, no Avast logo. ;D
May i politely suggest that you suggest to the “public” to read on the methodology of av-c, so they dont have misassumptions? It may mitigate some possible assumptions and various “possible doubts”.
Do you want to explain to me what i meant with my writing ? Or do you just try to “de-valuate” my posts, by picking a few points of FORM (still your opinion), rather than taking the thematic?
Didnt you noticed that the “public” doesnt critizise my posts?
“They most likely” understand my points …
Maybe its more interesting, if i just use your argumentation strategy myself, without critizising it
Public must be protected both from malware and misinformation.
AV-Comparatives.org gets money from AV-Vendors, how much from each vendor, we don’t know.
AV-Comparatives.org is NOT certified (other wellknown testing organisations like ICSA are certified by ISO).
AV-Comparatives.org is NOT audited
AV-Comparatives.org test results are NOT validated by anyone.
AV-Comparatives.org tries to muzzle AntiVirus vendors by bullying them (see my blog)
Now you can ignore all this and continue to trust their results…its ok…you are big boy and its ok for you to make mistakes that you can learn from…
but do NOT expect us to sit quitely and allow this to happen to public without us alerting them. As an FYI: Comodo did quite well in the test, thats not the point, the fact is AV-Comparatives.org have lost the trust of public.
Its our duty to protect the public. We will continue to do that, whether those 2-3 guys like it or not
Its also such a shame many utter words without understanding this issue or my blog, high IQ is not a pre-requisite in certain forums or discussions ;)…
Melih
While your wish is ok…
The way of your attempt to reach it is critiziseable.
It needs a specific amount of IQ to understand the difference.
Yes, you are right, sadly high IQ is not default available.
Its not the persons intentions which make an acting good. Its the acting itself. If a good guy does something wrong, it still is wrong.
Done and original subject “Re: CIS Certifications, Test Results & Reviews” left intact in the hope of causing less confusion.