:comodo110: I got a wee bit bored so i thought throw this question to Forum Members to Ponder over. If looking at Data base size and Detection rates, and no other factors, which would you choose to protect your system?. In this case i am looking Cav and Avira. Lets first look at the known facts, shown in testing by Forum members and other Areas. 1) Avira has around 1.350 million items of Spyware and Viruses ect in its Data base, and detected 99.7% in recent Av- comparitives testing. 2) Cav has almost 2.7million ( and growing at a greater rate than others daily) and detects around 98% now. My question revolves around the fact that as there are many more potential threats out there in the wild that that potentially can get past Avira due to its Smaller data base, assuming an attack occurs, then i would feel more secure personally with Cav, even though it does not at present ( may well do with the new Heuristics on their way) detect as well as Avira. so in my opinion that, on the grounds of twice the Data base, outweighs a 1.7% lower Detection rate. I am fully aware that there are other factors such as Fps and they both suffer in my experience, and effects on system performance due to ram usage, scan speeds, boot time, other prevention/ detection technology, but i am interested in forum members views on those two factors together, as it common to see people looking at Detection rate alone, and not Data base size, as Cavs detection rate has improved dramatically almost daily as the data base grows, at a greater rate than most others as i look at these factors. without any new technology changes. Someone shoot me down if you want but thats my opinion.
Avira with the higher detection rates and smaller database, that size shows it is much better at detecting unknown threats. So really you should feel more secure with Avira over CAV if that’s the only thing you are looking at.
Wishful thinking… I’d be surprised if it detects 90% in AV-Comparatives test while it also doesn’t fail the FP test miserably (which in current form most probably would).
I would go with Avira (higher detection). Then again, I want an antivirus that is detecting the latest threats as they will be more common (which I guess both are doing). However, CIS has D+ so that sells it for me. Based on your question, I would choose Avira.
But in the long run it will prove to be better than AV’s For now - YES. D+ are too chatty, doesn’t provide any recommendations on what to allow or block.
I would choose Avira now, because it’s certified by malware labs and proven itself with great results constantly. FP count is also in an acceptable range.
This topic, I believe, has echoed here numerous times. And what’s the point of it? All the time people come here and compare this and that. Either you love it, or you don’t. But obviously, you don’t have anything better to do at the moment. I chose COMODO, that’s it. It managed to convince me about its potential of becoming the best. My PC manages to maintain peak performance from the day I re-installed it and installed CIS. Best of all, the people of COMODO understand and spread the message: that a tool like this should be available to everyone. Together for a better world, and, if not that, at least an online environment. That’s COMODO.
i m using rising antivirus 2009 it won the VB award also, it works smoothly does automatic updates in every 2 hour, protects against spywares & viruses, email protection, it also has option to clean viruses & spywares etc.
:-TU but when CAV become better, its certified by VB award i will go for it. :a0hope so
I m looking forward to CAV paricipating in antivirus tests like VB test
88)
The fact that CAV has double the number of signatures than Avira is no guide to their relative detection rates.Each vendor categorizes malware in different ways,some have many signatures for individual variants while others group them into family sigs.Norton has over 3 million definitions but I’m sure it isn’t 2.5 times better than Avira at detection.
the best antivirus doesn’t exist
comodo detects things antivir does not and vice versa. it is 6 months that I have full CIS (firewall, antivirus and defense +), and I never viruses. more, comodo people are responsive and listen to us (especially at the level of FPs)
so stop your pointless discussing the ultimate antivirus doesn’t exist and no antivirus protects at 100%
Below is a quote from the VB testing website:
"Schedule for forthcoming comparative reviews
Developers interested in submitting products for Virus Bulletin’s comparative reviews should contact john.hawes[at]virusbtn.com.
The current schedule* for the publication of Virus Bulletin comparative reviews is as follows:
"June 2009: Windows Server 2003.
Please be aware that the testing will be carried out in the month preceding publication of the results - developers should contact John Hawes directly for the deadlines for product submission.
*Virus Bulletin reserves the right to amend the schedule."
The link describing their test procedures is: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/100procedure.xml
CIS should be far enough along in its development to warrant submission for these VB tests. To quote VB product submissions: “Testing and certification is open to any product vendor, entirely free of charge.” So there can be no financial impediment to Comodo getting CIS tested by VB.
So a very easy way to obtain data on this subject is for Comodo to submit CIS for VB testing. I know that the earlier version CIS 3.5 has been tested by Matousec. I also read where VB Comparatives said that CIS didn’t yet meet their detection rate standards for testing the product. I assume that CIS has not yet been submitted by Comodo to Virus Bulletin for testing.
Now that CIS is starting to mature somewhat, I think the more it can be tested by various well-known testing organizations, the better for CIS. Of course that statement assumes that CIS will do well, or at least satisfactorily, on the tests. I have always been a proponent of CIS being tested as much as possible so that users, and potential users, can see where it stands in relation to other available antivirus products. I have been using CIS since it first came out in Beta on 4 computers and have never had any virus problems. But people rely on testing results to see where a product they are using, or are thinking about using, stands in relation to other available products. This type of testing results feedback is good for the user and can be good for the product also.
Well, who cares if it’ll fail first few test? But users and even developers will at least know if they’re heading in the right direction. But now we only have to trust their (devs) word. And we all know how that works in general…
Sorry RejZor but i have to disagree with you a tad on that one.There are quite a lot of members who frequent this forum who do there own testing and by and large seem to have a pretty good overall view that malware samples are being caught.
You could and probably will counter that it`s gonna do well because they have submitted the samples so sure it will detect them.J and others who do test seem pretty positive about the future.
Everyone wants there flavour to come high in VB tests(as well as others), were human so we need things to believe in otherwise whats the point.
