Comodo Anti Virus vs. other free products

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?

CIS is proving itself to be a serious threat to all viruses out there.
As far as percentage points, that varies from tester to tester and from test to test (as does all other AV software).
CIS is faring very well with testers and their results (and this will only get better).

And CIS is getting better by the day because of all the people around here who are helping out

Here you can follow what happens to the signatures every day

Until I see a review from ICSA, Westcoast Labs, Virus Bulletin etc, it’s really difficult to say how good the AV is. But the HIPS really covers for the AV anyway, and it is the opposite for other Suites, where the AV usually covers for the firewall and incomplete HIPS like functions (Avira Internet Security Suite comes to mind).

:comodo110: very happy with it and whatever I want to I can run in sandboxie to :BNC

I’d have to step in here. I’ve used AVG, Avast and Norton 360(£60, that like $100) and they all proved to be poor. Well I got a virus 28 days after buying Norton 360 and had to get my money back. AVG proved to a burden to my computer memory, perhaps wasn’t doing a good job either. Avast, what can I say, well good for few months but caught virus at last. The good thing was that my mate recommended comodo and immediately I noticed the difference.

I’ve tested comodo on my virtual testing machines and concluded it’s the best antivirus, even better than premium ones. About the database question, I don’t really think Comodo needs large database as the detection mechanism is very powerful. How many antivirus detects virus in torrent downloads?? I’ve tested it all but there are still little areas that need to be fixed.

A very big well done to the comodo organisation.

I think the question is: what’s the relationship between the three main CIS components? AV/FW/D+
What is the AntiVirus really doing there?
It was supposed to tame Defense+. It did nothing of the kind; in fact it did nothing but cause problems or serious problems.

Of course, with V4, the question may change. But with V4 there are a lot of questions.

And then we have another question; wouldn’t it have been better to search a partnership with some experienced maker, like Avira?

I allways thought it would be the perfect match. They need a good Firewall, and we need a good AV.
The only thing left would be negotiations. They are German; proud but pragmatic. Comodo is… well

Maybe you would care to explain what you mean by this statement? What problems have you experienced?

I really don’t think I would want COMODO involved with another company like that, then we would be at their whim and while Avira/Avast!/AVG flagship products are their AV COMODO’s is the whole suite (CIS) so I think it was a good idea to forge ahead and do it themselves. Especially not with Avira, I can see the popups screaming at me to upgrade already. 88)

In my experience, I can say that I am not especially impressed by the AV component of CIS. It does a reasonable job at detection, a less than adequate job at cleaning but the update process is well below standard.

Having said this, when coupled with D+ and the firewall, the AV becomes less relevant and the suite does a great job at protecting your system.


Exactly, I think this is really the point. COMODO’s AV is hopefully progressing to the point where it can be a focal point of the suite but the fact remains if I can keep malware OUT of my system in the first place I don’t have to detect OR clean it :o. That’s the difference in philosophy. Well that and the it’s free but it’s still full featured. I know quite a few companies who could benefit from this mindset. :wink:

I have never needed any cleaning. The bad stuff has not got in.

To any-one who trusts in their A.V. ability to clean out what it let in, I can only quote
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”


It is not a case of asking the AV to clean what it let in, it is more a case of installing an AV on a machine that was not previously protected adequately. History has taught me that many do not understand (or care about) computer security.


I accept that as a valid cause for concern.

It would be nice if C.I.S. could eradicate all root-kits and boot-viruses that may have previously infested a P.C.,
but that is an unreasonable expectation - I do not know of ANY legitimate A.V. (real-time or otherwise) to promise that.

If a P.C. has been compromised there are malware fighting sites that will give specific guidance over the various stages involved in cleaning the P.C.
These sites would not exist if a standard software package could automatically remove malware.

It is good if Comodo cleans previous malware - but not if the user wrongly thinks his P.C. is then clean.

I would much prefer that Comodo recommend obtaining skilled removal of malware,
rather than doing half a job.


It is true that Comodo is doing less when compared to its peers regarding cleaning of malware. However with the increased detection capabilities it does a good job of keeping baddies out.

Melih stated that the acid like cleaning that he mentioned before will be realised in v4.1 as the current planning provides.

I used comodo for a long time as a free av, and I guess you get what you paid for because it is not worth anything. It might stop some things but so what?

Just as an example, I moved some software and files from another person’s PC to mine. Their PC was NOT infected but had many infected files on it. How did I find out? Because I now use G-Data and it found over 30 viruses and trojans.

Now I realise strictly speaking anti-virus software means just that, but over the years trojans and malware have all been lumped into this category - so until comodo can life its game, it would be hard to recommend anyone use comodo because it gives a false sense of security.

(This is just my view when comparing gdata to comodo. Pay the money or don’t use a free AV like comodo - it’s a waste of resources unless you like the false hope! One would hope their firewall’s better!!!)

No Antivirus detects anything. It’s a game of cat and mouse. What G-data might detect, Comodo might not and Vice Versa
I can guarantee you that Comodo Internet Security provides more protection.

What G-Data doesn’t recognize it lets run by, steal your bank details etc.

Anything/Everything it doesn’t recognize it runs in a sandbox.
Anything/Everything it doesn’t know it asks for permission to connect to the internet.
Anything/Everything that tries to modify something will alert the user.

So, Even if comodo doesn’t have the signatures to detect malware. It will protect you from the malware. Even those it doesn’t know.

What was “your view” again? This post didn’t really say anything other than…well, it really didn’t say anything at all.

What does “life its game” mean? ???
If “false sense of security” means “nothing getting through” then yes, you’re exactly right.

Please, state an actual issue or some proof of anything or an actual problem to warrant this post.

I’m sorry, I would much rather help someone, I just don’t care for Trolls. 88)

He’s not a troll… He’s just venting his frustration on the appropriate forum… it’s our job to pour some cold water over him :slight_smile: