How Good is CAVS?

Hi everyone,

I have been using CPF for a long time now, and its the very best firewall so far. Who wants to pay for Zonealarm when you don’t need to?

I have complete trust in Comodo products, yet, as I am a very paranoid person on viruses, I prefer good antivirus softwares that will actually detect viruses and spyware, without slowing down the system too much. Symantec worked for me, until it started to crash again and again on my computer. Even a reformat didn’t help. So I am wondering, how good is CAVS, as I didn’t see it tested in any Virus bulletin checks (Understandable as its still in beta, right?). In other words, I would like to ask the following questions:

  1. How good is CAVS compared with AVG, Avast! and Antivir?
  2. Will CAVS slow down a Windows Tablet PC edition computer on a 1.75 ghz processor, and 512 MB RAM?
  3. Will CAVS detect all in the wild viruses and known viruses, in other words get a VB100 certificate.

If not, I’ll just wait till the final product is out, and stick to Avast! for the moment, btw is an estimation of the final product possible?

Thank you for having such great products! (B) (L) (R) (V) (:CLP)

G’day,

It’s only my opinion, but I consider CAVS to be the equal of AVG and AntiVir. Avast may still have the edge, but CAVS is still very much in a developmental stage and will improve.

2. Will CAVS slow down a Windows Tablet PC edition computer on a 1.75 ghz processor, and 512 MB RAM?

Whether any AV product will slow a given system down depends, to a large extent, on the landscape of that particular machine. CAVS induces some lag on some systems and almost none on others. There is no hard and fast rule, but on my test systems, the lag is negligible, but they are just my systems and results will vary.

3. Will CAVS detect all in the wild viruses and known viruses, in other words get a VB100 certificate.

IMHO, nothing detects everything. Whether CAVS will get a VB100 award is debatable, but this is because of the architecture of CAVS, rather than it not being good enough. Most traditional AVs use a two layer approach - detection and removal, and VB100 and similar tests base their testing and results on this two layer model. CAVS has introduced a third outer layer focussed on prevention. This is a very different approach that does not lend itself to testing based on the two layer model.

Hope this helps,
Ewen :slight_smile:

Comodo equal with avast! and AntiVir (especially the later). Thats hardly realistic. Have you seen any latest AntiVir tests? It’s heuristics surpass even NOD32 which used to be authority in heuristics area.

I agree with that. Antivir is excellent, while being as lightweight (in terms of slow down. RAM usage well below 10MB) as an AV program gets. I have had it for years and won’t give it up for CAVS just like that.

Thank you very much for all the comments, Then I think I’ll go along with Avast! or Antivir for the moment, till CAVS gets to the final version. I do like the focus on prevention, as that’s what I love to do. Preventing is always the best.

The Heuristics of antivir gives a hell of faulse positives. Avast is far better for me.

Oh really? I can’t say I have noticed that. When did you last try it?

Only if you use High level. It’s not called High for no reason… And even with this one i haven’t seen many FP’s compared to number of real malware being detected because of it.