CIS 2011 vs NIS 2011 - Matousec Test Report

Hi Guys,

We asked the experts at Matousec to compare the proactive defense capabilities of both products. The report is attached.

In Summary, CIS - 97/100 NIS - 42/100.


[attachment deleted by admin]

once again! welldone to Comodo!


Not a bad showing indeed! ;D

Nicely done Comodo!

Seems like a fair test.

However, Comodo still has some vulnerabilities to fix. Still, not quite as many as Norton. 88)

This is all about if Free can protect as well as Paid or not.

It seems obvious from the AV-Test in Germany and now Matousec that Free can protect as well as paid, and even better!


The report is really well done, it explains everything.
And congrats to Comodo.

edit: so in the end, even with AV enabled, NIS couldn’t detect all viruses… ouch…

good job comodo. 8)

Very good showing, Melih.
Well done team.

well done comodo

:-TU almost perfect!!!


I’m surprised that NIS scored so poorly. Pleased that CIS did so well, just surprised that NIS is so far behind.

Matousec’s testing methodology seems OK. Hopefully, for NIS users, this was a once-off. Luckily, for CIS users, this is what I expected. :wink:

Ewen :slight_smile:

im think this is not the first time you are surprised about the low nis results,
i belive it was on ekraise test you said yuor were surprised too, why it is so unbeliable to have CIS beats NIS in an huge gap.
anyway were is the official link to thist test?

Why is this unexpected for NIS? Does NIS have a Classical HIPS component? The last time I checked, the answer was no. Do you not understand what a Classical HIPS (Defense+) does? Or were you expecting NIS to detect over 90% with its black-listing/behaviour-blocking component? That’s never going to happen with that kind of technology. As Melih has said time and time again, malware writers actively make sure popular Antivirus software don’t detect their virus programs.

Since CIS has default-deny technology (the Classical HIPS component), it will always be more powerful than anti-malware technology like NIS. For zero-day malware, NIS would only detect 50-60% at best, while CIS would potentially block 100% with perfect decision making from the user. With CIS version 5, this decision making has been made more automatic.

Of course he does… 88)

Yes, I’m pretty sure he does too. I guess I was just phrasing it to address everyone who doesn’t understand it haha.

  1. this test is just about proactive defense capabilities.
    it does not show that Symantec is impotent, but it shows that NIS relies on a signature/cloud(reputation based, compared to signature-based CIS cloud) detection, which cannot prevent individual-targeted trojan.
  2. the absence of SONAR is problematic.
    SONAR is a kind of proactive behavioral detection, and it’s not based on signatures. ( as far as I know )
    that’s why NIS slows down the system when before running unrecognized executables.

not all free product cannot provide sufficient protection.(compared with what Symantec said) some of them really does.
and it’s not a matter of paid/free product, what really important is a technology and security. over.

i came with the ideo of posting that result in norton forum XD
who wanna get banned in their forum? who got the balls to face the conmotion?
how much will it endure intil the post is deleted?

ha ha…you can wake up a guy who is sleeping but not the one who is pretending.

+1 :-TU
It’s not a matter of paid or free.

There’s an old saying - "I do not need “them” to fail for “me” to succeed.

Is it worth the angst? They’ll find out about it sooner or later. My son works for Symantec and he’s seen the report. :wink:

Ewen :slight_smile: