2 YouTube detection test (ComodovPandavAvgvAviravAvast)

Here are the 2 YouTube detection test links:

AviravAvastvComodo

PandaCloudFreevAVGvComodoAV

Well done Comodo don’t rest on your laurels like Avast and Avira have done. Especially Avira they haven’t really done anything new with their product and still rely on their detection which is good but I was using it and was bypassed with a virus before my switch back to Comodo. Very surprised with the changes in Comodo less pop up but more importantly the pop ups now give more information :-TU

Avira once was so good at detection clearly felt they didn’t need to innovate and had it in the bag. Now slowly Avira is working on their Antivirus and improving it.

I still remember Super Antispyware and Malwarebytes. Super Antispyware used to be way better than Malwarebytes look now things have changed. Hence why you need to always improve.

So happy to see your detection rate is around 80+% then the HIPS and other protections can kick in to give a total protection.

Thank you & take care.

Would be interesting if each left over folder has been scanned with the others for testing. And compare also the damage potential of the left overs.

Personally i dont care if my computer gets infected with one virus among 90 left overs, or by one with 129. These folder tests are not very reliable for normal use. Because maybe the user gets SOME files which are detected, or some which arent. But usually he doesnt get the whole folder.

Avira free version is an antivirus. What a surprise :smiley: . (For completion: The archive detection was limited to 20 layers, and offline files were ignored from scan). High setting doesnt mean, mark any boxes! :smiley:
Avast has some more technics, so maybe the not detected files wouldnt have infected the system.
Comodo has defense+ and the cloud scan was enabled.

I am not sure what this test tells me (in global).
I would still choose the one that i use, because it has a statefull guard which is actually statefull, and because the performance hunger is very small compared to what i experienced with comodo antivirus.
If one day i load a folder full of malware, i would be ■■■■■■■ anyway :smiley:

My result is: Dont trust depending on detection alone!

Another here:

Very impressive :slight_smile:
Comodo’s detection gets better and better :-TU

We will always continue to improve our products! thats a promise!

Melih

:wink: Detection is only part of the story…Prevention is everthing…Thank the Lord for Comodo… Keep up the good work…Never had a single infection since being with Comodo since its beginning. ;D…Things can only get better… Roll on Version 6.

Regards
Dave1234.

Promises are cheap and in todays society rather meaningless … But in the 4-5 years i have been using Comodo the actions have spoken very loudly of your teams dedication to both their craft AND their users.

Well … up till you offloaded onto geekbuddy …

Had to edit this in because i can’t stand people who double post :?)

more proof that their actions speak for themselves:

https://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/very-disappointed-t80016.0.html;msg573700#msg573700

Sorry but this test is the most useless one and doesn’t prove absolutely nothing at all. So Comodo detected the most because they used High heuristics. If there was a clean set for FP evaluation, Comodo would totally fail. I’ve seen Comodo heuristics in action and they detect anything and everything. Of course it will score well on a malware only test. But such test is useless for real world usage unless you like detection popups on pretty much every single file you’ll ever encounter. Any vendor could make some dumb aggresive heuristics and score well in such test. But it would make that AV pretty much useless.

Comodo’s cloud features are good but their local heuristics are, sorry to say, pathetic. And it has been like this ever since i know Comodo AV from it’s early days. I wonder why can’t they make them any better over all this time…

And now it’s a grammar’s fault? I said what i said.

I’m sorry, no offense intended. Since you said the opposite of what you apparently meant, I thought it might be important. My mistake, I’ve deleted my post.

There is nothing strange when avast distributor for Slovenia says Comodo sucks.
Come to the Arena, Zmajchek!

Right. So based on your observation i’d also have to say that Norton or Kaspersky suck. But they don’t. And AVIRA and F-Secure etc… They all aren’t avast! yet i’m not saying they suck. It must be my bias right?
Comodo’s AV component is simply not up to teh task. Defense+ maybe since it has gone a long way since it’s early primitive HIPS to today’s suprisingly good mechanism, but the AV is still very poor no matter what you think.

At Bug.hr forum users test CAV every day against fresh malware and its score is among the best.
EAM is another great product that is known to have higher FP ratio.
Are you going to say that it’s also poor?
BTW, lots of users prefer to have few FPs rather than a malware slipping through their system.

Someone should tell him, he can make much much more money with Comodo!!! He should join Comodo! I will give him an offer he can’t refuse!

Melih

;D :smiley: ;D :-TU

yeah cheers :-TU