I see the monthly detection tests from AV-Comparatives show Kaspersky, Emsisoft, Panda detecting 99.9, 99.8% of 129,253 sample variants tested. Emsisoft detected 100% where does Comodo sit within such tests, and are these tests just used in the detection of, and not the protection abilities of such products - a big question (I know) I just like many see such results and instantly choose Kaspersky or Emsisioft based on tests/awards???
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year 2014 - hope you and your family have an amazing Christmas!!!
Yes that may show it from a different view point, but normal everyday users are not going to see such reports/emails etc., they will only see amazing results on the vendors product page that’s the point I’m making.
Yes but Emsisoft, F-Secure, Kaspersky etc., show on their websites these amazing award they have achieved and people go on results - when you buy something how many people check if it’s any good/product tests and results. Everyone does!
These are paid products…They need to completely satisfy the client. I would never buy a product from a vendor that claims to detect 100 % etc…without possible valid proofs.
Detection is only but so important with the proactive approach Comodo is taking. Detection is for usability is what Melih used to say…
Comodo Internet Security always has protected me. When CIS was first released (v3.5) I switched immediately as it ran lighter on my back older system than Comodo Firewall and Avira (which also ran light those days). The detection rates where much lower those days but I never got infected. Which showed for me again that detection is only but so important and that a proactive approach is preferable.
But it will be the wrong idea as it comes from a non-neutral author. Google is using AV Comparatives as their primary testing source on their main device security article: google.com/goodtoknow/online-safety/device. Therefore one has good reason to consider AV Comparatives as reliable as it gets.
In fact, Comodo was tested by AV Comparatives but the testing wasn’t published; Comodo didn’t perform well. Comodo didn’t perform well in the industry standard (VB100) either and it stopped getting tested there as well.
I don’t see why the words of the CEO would give the wrong idea as to why Comodo is not in the test? I think the words of the CEO of Comodo is the closest we get to the reason Comodo is no longer in the test, which was the question I answered, I didn’t say the site is unreliable or anything like that, only linked to articles that could show why Comodo is not in the test.
Personally I don’t pay attention to any of these test because mostly (at least when I last checked such things) they only test detection/removal and not actual protection, a sandbox could protect you from an unknown malware but since it wasn’t detected it’s counted as a fail… even though you were protected.
you always get preotection with CİS, I think Comodo Firewall is enough for everything no need to AV module 88) CFW can protect you with D+, sandbox and TVL :-TU
I was not aware this topic was so highly disliked. I am just a person who (like many) see awards etc., as a product being very good, many would not be aware any problems e.g., bullying by another vendor or directly by AV-Comparatives. This is the point I am trying to make. I view vb100 and see that Comodo has failed every test, now I do not know a lot about antivirus procedures so to me it looks poor on Comodo’s front and many others will also take that view
Very true, but most people (novice users) buy a PC/Laptop and want basic security so go with what PC World suggest, which 99.9% of the time is Norton. It’s ashame Comodo does not market like Norton/Kaspersky you go in to the store and see Comodo in the shop - that does not happen.
!ot!
Why did Comodo get 6 for protection AV-Tests for Windows 7 but Windows 8 only 3.5?
… also good site.