I have three questions…
I remember not all that long ago that people were posting in forums – even in this one, if memory serves – that Comodo’s anti-virus product seemed very good, but it was so relatively new (compared with, for example, Grisoft’s AVG Free Edition, just to name one) that its anti-virus database was smaller and so didn’t include some of the older viruses that the database of a more mature product like AVG would include.
Is that really true?
For purposes of what I’m asking, here, let’s forget about AVG’s relative hit rate. All indications are that most of AVG Free’s serious competitors (including, I suspect, Comodo) successfully find a higher percentage of viruses than does AVG Free. Comparative hit rate has always been AVG Free’s weak spot. But I’m not talking about that here.
Instead, I’m simply asking, in effect, if the Commodo Anti-virus product is too new; if it will take another few months before its virus database is sufficiently built-up that it can really and truly compete with the other free anti-virus products out there that are older and have good track records. That’s my first question.
My second question is: As long as I’ve mentioned Commodo Anti-virus’s average hit rate, what is it? AVG Free’s has always been down in the mid-80-percent range, give or take. Most other well-known free AVG competitors have always been at least 10 percentage points better (or more) than AVG FREE. In those same studies/comparisons, what has been Comodo’s performance?
And my third (and last) question is: How does Comodo’s anti-virus product do in the area of detecting viruses which are so new that they’re not in anyone’s virus database yet? This was, for a long time, Norton Anti-Virus’s area of superiority. For whatever reason, Norton, for the longest time, always did better than just about any other product – including McAfee – at detecting as-yet-unidentified, brand new viruses. Norton may not have been able to put a name to them, but by their behavior and whatever other indicators, Norton (in blind studies) always seemed to spot more of them than any of its competitors. I have no idea if Norton still wears that crown. If Symantec has done to Norton what it has always done to all the other products it has acquired and then run straight into the ground, then it probably doesn’t. And, if not, then I don’t know which product holds the distinction of being best-of-breed among anti-virus products in the area of detecting brand new, as-yet-unidentified viruses and other exploits. But I’m guessing that someone here does… and, morever, knows how Comodo’s anti-virus product stacks up. So, then… how has Comodo Anti Virus done in that area in studies or tests?