PC MAG review of Comodo ver 5



What comodo didn’t get 100% on everything… UHhhhhh. Just kidding!!!
But on a serious note. it looks good :■■■■

Only thing Comodo needs to do better is cleanup.
CIS cleanup was well below avereage.

I don’t understand how they did the malware test, I read their write up and I had a hard time understanding how they came up with the percentage number.

It is pretty well explained here. They drop points for any non-executable junk files left behind and probably some got through the auto-sandbox. It is a fair review and mostly positive.

Comodo did a lot better than Norton. :stuck_out_tongue: And well, a lot of the Antivirus programs. Looks like Ad-Aware did pretty good.


No other product has detected a bigger percentage of the threats. Comodo detected 100% of the keyloggers. Comodo also detected 100 percent of rootkits and scareware samples. Comodo detected 100% of the scareware samples and set a new record for scareware blocking

Run away from this or, in other words, solve these problems:

How would you react to a warning about a program that "allows applications to perform recursive network connections by using the Windows process svchost.exe"?
In addition Secure DNS replaces the error message for non-existent URLs with a page of sponsored Yahoo! ads, something that won't please everyone.
Comodo's on-access signature-based scanner must be a lot less flexible than these, as it missed fully two thirds of the hand-modified samples.
Let's improve CAV. And then, a step forward, improve cleaning.

CIS is doing very well and this is a very fair review from Neil, highlighting genuine issues that many of us have experienced and reported on these forums countless times. Especially that the average users cannot be left to make important security decisions whilst the defaults block too much, or not enough, and then the safety net of malware detection is not strong enough.

When he says "these popups are also just as confusing as those of old-time firewalls. How would you react to a warning about a program that “allows applications to perform recursive network connections by using the Windows process svchost.exe”? Well, many of us have requested Comodo for the past 2+ years to deal with this svchost issue!!!

Then, “If the folks at Comodo want to seriously contend that there’s no hope for a malware-infested system, that the only recourse is to wipe it and start over, then they should simply omit malware removal from the product. Including it as a feature that performs this poorly will not impress the user.” Well, i suggested that Comodo team up, or buy, an expert in malware detection and then with COmodo’s expertise in protection it would be a great combo. Gdata already do this by running 2 scanning engines in parallel, one provided by Avast the other by Bitdefender. Or Hitman Pro uses 4 or 5. Sure, it would cost money and therefore this enhanced scanning engine would probably only be offered to paying Pro users with free users on the current but slowly improving Comodo AV database. But this is the only way to quickly gain credibility and restore confidence in the marketplace.

C’mon Melih, you guys are doing a great job especially from where and when you started, but you need to pull out all the stops now and rapidly advance and acquire / buy this technology for 2-3 years until CS AV truly gets up to full detection capability. We know prevention makes more sense, but there are loopholes or mistakes, or existing systems, that require an excellent AV detection in addition to prevention. Or like Neil says…“Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware is especially good at cleanup and would be a good supplement to Comodo Antivirus 5.0” so well, go buy these guys before they get snapped up by someone else!!!


Many people used to say that PC Mag always favoured Norton.

This certainly shows otherwise as Norton now seems to come well down the score sheets.


Love my Comodo but seriously guys I know about the whole prevention thing but lets improve the clean up abilities!

+1 :-TU

Do you really think Comodo will sell GData licenses to the Pro users?
Credibitily and confidence are another points to be discussed…

Indeed, if some of the “bad” guys buy Malwarebytes and ■■■■■ it up will be a shame…
Did you hear anywhere that MBAM is for sale?

A very objective review that showed flaws of AV (by the way it shouldn’t be a big revelation for those who use Comodo AV on daily basis) and also many strong points. So, please stop looking for flaws in the test which to your idea tested bad your beloved toy, but analyze what should be improved and start improving to make Comodo even better. That’s what defers a group of real professionals from not so professional company.

Well Gdata is actually buying Bitdefender and Avast licenses, so Comodo should normally go direct them. But take a look at Hitman Pro, they use 5 engines. I also know that Kaspersky license out their engine to several other companies.

The main point is that this could be finally a recognition by Comodo that they are simply not yet good enough on AV detection. So for an interim period of 2 years perhaps, they could boost their AV detection for the paying customers (I say paying customers because Comodo will need to buy AV license and need to pass on the cost to users, therefore could not do this for their free AV).

Comodo strength and uniqueness is on prevention, so they can continue to be proud, but also realistic that detection and whitelisting still has a massive amount of work remaining. Most users would not know, or even be bothered as to who actually makes their AV engine, they just want excellent ALL ROUND protection which CIS provides very capably apart from AV and D+ whitelist issues.

As for Malwarebytes, no, i do not know if the company is for sale, but these kinds of takeovers are normally hostile, or the people behind the small companies are normally venture capitalists who are very happy to realise a good profit if a bigger company makes them a good offer! Perhaps Melih will get his wallet out?! Many IT companies are started with the aim of getting noticed and then being snapped up and the owners becoming rich!


Comodo have spent the past two years developing an antivirus which is approaching the detection levels of the best in the business. Do you really think that they should now buy in another when they could have saved a fortune by doing that at the start?

The expertise is here at Comodo. Improvements are coming all the time so there is no way that they need to buy out a competitor.

cavehomme, I think Comodo will never admit that and follow your suggestion… Or, saying in another positive way, they could improve CAV to get even better the other paid ones and they wish to do this in a very short period.

I think you are right and Comodo will not do this, but I am also trying to make this suggestion as something very positive and Melih / Comodo should not let their pride / ego get in the way! A person and company show their strength by admitting their weaknesses and resolving them quickly and effectively.

Given that the AV and whitelist improvements have taken so long, and that it is a truly huge work to accomplish, and we will undoubtedly wait for another year or two, why not get help and a good boost? The cost of doing it my way could be less than the cost of loss revenue through negative reviews, because even if Comodo do not like it, most people out there just think “antivirus mode” and detection.

Anyway, I am just dreaming and I think Comodo will not do this and instead struggle by themselves for another 2 years and in the meantime Melih will get p***** off with ongoing poor AV reviews such as by Neil and the previous day by the reviewer on the “dimhub” site, and he will scream “it’s all about prevention!”, but the rest of us know it is not entirely like that ;D

In the meantime, I use CIS 5 Pro with AV enabled but also MWAB realtime paid version to help fill any gaps and be a safety net. My data is important for me so i am happy to pay, but perhaps I really should make the jump to linux instead of worrying all the time about Windows security?! :cry:

cavehomme, I agree with you but… Aren’t you exaggerating a bit?
Reviews and av tests will always complain and report problems, users will do the same.
Sometimes, our schedule is different from the programmers and from the business perspective.

sure we will…but you will hardly use it when you use CIS ;)…so you are being nice and requesting this feature for others :wink:


I am more concerned about the quality of the signatures and the heuristics engine. The reviewer states that a small modification of previously detected samples resulted in CAV missing some of them.