The guy who runs the Raymond.cc blog occasionally does informal testing of anti-virus and security products; and he just completed testing 106 of them, including version 3.13 of Comodo Internet Security (CIS), for what he called “Speed and Memory Usage.”
TEST 1]: CIS performed merely above-average in the “Application Launch Time” test.
TEST 2: It was among the twenty best performers in the “Boot Time Increase” test (in other words, approximately 80% of all the other products tested slowed-down system boot time more than CIS did).
TEST 3: CIS was NUMBER 2 (the second-best performer) in the “Idle Memory Usage” test. Gotta’ like that!
TEST 4: CIS was below-average in the “Peak Memory Usage” test. That said, many of the biggest names in products of CIS’s type did worse. Still, though, it’s nothing to be proud of when Ashampoo’s product does so much better. [grin]
TEST 5: CIS did pretty okay in the “Installation Size” test. Some products literally dwarfed Comodo in initially-installed size, before any updates; and a relatively small number of other products were smaller in size, and even then only by a little. So, though CIS wasn’t as high on the list as one might like, it did reasonably well, actually, in this test, all things considered.
TEST 6: CIS’s heuristics failed to detect the polymorphic and “incognito” encrypted "Bifrost trojan in scantime testing… but then again, neither did all but two of the others. However, CIS was one of the relatively few that could detect it in runtime testing, though it could not block it.
TEST 7: CIS was among the top twenty performers in full scan time. That ain’t a bit bad!
The testing is informal, of course… not nearly as comprehensive or probably interesting as if one of the big labs had done it. Still, Raymond is a pretty smart cookie; and his testing methodology was, I’m sure, fair and reasonable.
And, all things considered, Comodo didn’t do a bit badly, did it. Interesting. And not surprising, really, as far as CIS has come. Good show!
HarpGuy