PC World Hammers Comodo

I’ve stopped trusting PCWorld for a while now, but they still have a large audience. They tested 3.8, giving it a score of 57/100 while claiming it costs $40 to use the software!?! ???


Please note their review was of the ‘Pro’ which is CIS plus additional support services.
I was disappointed they tested 3.8, but they did mention about 3.9

A more direct link;

Comodo produced a warning 93 percent of the time; detected and blocked 80 percent of the malware
Cough cough when was the last time comodo was unable to block malware reported? Haven't seen 1 report as long as I've been here..
Comodo produced more signature file updates than PC Tools, issuing 46 signature updates in January 2009, 41 in February 2009, and 45 in March 2009, averaging 1.5 per day, compared with over 200 per day from the Norton Internet Security 2009 suite.
They forgot to mention how many signatures were in comodo's updates.

[at]John - Even if they did test 3.8 it should not have scored that low, CIS is better now with detection with 3.9 but it’s always been a beast of a suite with D+.
They should have added something like “Although the av component did not do as well as other competitors, The HIPS module scored very well blocking …random words here”

the word Protection is about protecting the users…

I have to respectfully disagree with the author that CIS protects less.

This is again the confusion caused by so called testing orgs confusing the public to associate the term detection with protection. We all know detection is not the only way to protect and actually it should not be the first line of defense.


As far as I’m aware there is no difference in the free or pro version aside from the added support. It would have been nice if they mentioned that in the review.

Yes the author confuses Detection and Protection. For example using the word “Block” with an Av isn’t correct…

It doesn’t appear that they tested the whole suite, rather just the Av ?

Comodo lacks some key features, namely antispam and antiphishing protection--surprising given the number of attacks coming from phishing sites these days.

Namely Comodo Antispam and Comodo VEngine. ???

Comodo made its name with its firewall (and [url=http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,63762/description.html]offers a free version of it[/url]).

Was linking an old article about CFP 3.0.25 more practical than providing information that the very reviewed suite is available for free with unlimited license ???

Comodo Internet Security Pro 3.8 (one-year, one-user license at $40; no three-user license listed as of 5/21/09) is a newcomer to the consumer Internet security suite market. And based on our experience, the suite is clearly in its infancy
Whereas the paid CIS PRO bundle additionally entitles to [url=http://www.livepcsupport.com/]Live Security Experts available 24/7[/url] (who provide on-demand hands-on services ranging from configuration to diagnosis and fixes) and [url=http://www.comodo.com/trustconnect/]Trustconnect[/url] (an application that is meant to secure Internet access on insecure channels like untrusted WIFI hotspots).

I hope the reviewer didn’t test G-Data Internet Security 2010 in the same way. :-\

PC World is not currently listed as a AMTSO member. That alone can throw any results into question.

AV-TEST.org is but nevertheless the test methodology (and the complete test itself) AFAIK is nowhere to be found. :-\

comodo is great product that we can use for free, which is threatening to AV companies like norton especially during these financial hardships.

theyve just written it off so that less people use it and buy norton from them. btw pcworld in the uk are responsible for most sales of norton ive encountered which is constantly bad mouthed by my fellow system builders.

This sounds suspiciously similar to the problem where intel was paying pc manufacturers to buy their cpu’s instead of amd’s, and they got fined for it.


Also like to mention that pc world staff in the uk know literally nothing about computers

No mention of Defence +. Detection is not prevention, and I hesitate to trust results who ignore some of the primary defense mechanisms included in the CIS suite.

The most frustrating thing however is the inability of people to discern the difference; Comodo’s true voice can’t be represented in a review as such. It’s almost like Comodo has to bite the bullet and produce this “Top of the line detection AV” before people decide to really learn.

funny you said that, it is actually getting there. ;D

By the way, will they ever be merged with CIS ?

You said it…


I actually would like to see that, but what I would also like is to have the option not to install it when installing CIS just like we do with the firewall and AV right now.

Those pc mags never know what they talk about… Who seriously thinks Bit Defender or Panda has any capabilities in class with CIS regarding Malware protection… =S

Bottom Line: Comodo's new suite shows promise, but still lacks a few protections and features common to other suites.

LOL… Its the competitors that lacks futures and protection in class with CIS… =S

Reviews from people that have not even researched CIS and want security to be fully automatic.

this is why i dont like reviews, i jugde for myself.

AV-TEST.org did the tests, that I confirmed. Being AMTSO I would have expected to see the testing methodology included.

I dislike that as well… Its not unusual for those PC mags to reviews stuff without having the proper knowledge for the job… That’s probably why ■■■■ like this gets published…

Along with that a whole bunch of newbies are fooled to spend money on a inferior product that they believe are the best since the mag told them so… =S

I don’t think this test was AMTSO compliant test, cos they didn’t test the Dynamic Protection as per the guidelines. They did the old static test.

Here is an excerpt from AMTSO

[i]Best Practices for Dynamic Testing


This document describes best practices for the dynamic testing of host‐based anti‐malware products, where dynamic testing means tests where a PC is exposed to a live threat (for example, by attempting to execute the malware) as part of the test. This type of test is a more realistic test of product efficacy than standard static tests (for example, on‐demand scanning), as it directly mimics malware executing on a victim’s machine. While dynamic testing is the only way to test some anti‐malware technologies, it is appropriate as a test methodology for all types of anti‐malware products. [/i]