What is the last avast detection rate and test scoring?

[carioca]

 
Dear Buddies,
What is the last detection rate of avast home compared to the competitors? How was It scored? What its position in the AV international rank test scoring? Which is the most reliable test? I know this question is embarassing but I would like to know frank discussion without any heart feeling.thanks for the replies and assistance. Have a nice day!

[FreewheelinFrank]

Here is a good source of information. Check out the latest on-demand comparitive results. (Feb. 06)

http://www.av-comparatives.org

[Vlk]

On a side note, this is an official avast support forum, so no matter if you like it or not, the opinions expressed here will be, in a way, biased.

For a general (less biased) discussion, I'd suggest heading e.g. to Wilders' http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32


Thanks
Vlk

[JerryM]

I would have to say that, based on AV Comparatives, that Avast is a second tier AV. That may be good enough for safe surfers and those who use good judgment. Layering is of great importance, in my opinion, to improve protection.

I have used Avast Home, and recommended it to several others. No one has had an infection. I had it on my laptop, but recently uninstalled it in favor of a six month trial of F-Secure.

I consider Avast the best overall of the free AVs, but would not buy it, because there are several others that have better detection rates, and if I am going to pay for it, I  might as well get the best that will run well on my system.

Regards,
Jerry

[DavidR]

The av-comparatives.org Retrospective / ProActive - Test May 2006 rates avast Advanced, as does the Anti-Virus Comparative February 2006 tests.

I have used Avast Home, and recommended it to several others. No one has had an infection.
<Snip>
I consider Avast the best overall of the free AVs, but would not buy it, because there are several others that have better detection rates, and if I am going to pay for it, I  might as well get the best that will run well on my system.

I'm sorry I simply don't see the logic in that, yes there are some people that simply can't afford to pay for protection.

The AV is either up to the job or isn't not whether it is the best of the free AVs. If you don't feel it is up to the job you chose another AV and if that means paying for it because you think it is better

[JerryM]

Hi David,

My own logic, maybe flawed, is that everyone cannot or will not afford a paid AV. Sometimes I wonder how one affords one or more computers, and cannot pay for an AV.

But when I buy anything I buy the best that I can afford in accordance with my needs.

I cannot see how it is arguable that Avast is not as good, considering detection rates, as KAV or NOD for example. And detection is what I want in my own AV, assuming it runs well on my system.

My original thought was that my laptop would not be online much, and accordingly did not need the level of protection that was needed on my desktop. I do not surf risky sites ever, if I know it. I also use Firefox. and with it SiteAdvisor and Spoofstick.

However, after seeing some threads about infections, and the difficulty of getting rid of the malware, I decided that the cost of the best AVs was worth reducing the risk in any case.

I  have previously posted that I do not know anyone personally who uses Avast that has gotten infected. I say the same about AVG, which is about the poorest at detection rates. But for me, I decided I wanted the best protection available, that I could reasonably get.

Nothing I have said was meant to flame Avast, but realistically it is not the equal of several other AVs by any standard that I am aware of. If you are going to pay, then get the best.

My primary purpose in this thread was to answer the original question as I see it.

Regards,
Jerry

[Lisandro]

But when I buy anything I buy the best that I can afford in accordance with my needs.

I agree... but for me detection is not the *only* thing to pay attention... performance, configurability, ...
By the way, avast Home and Pro version "detection" will be the same in most circunstances. 

I do not surf risky sites ever, if I know it. I also use Firefox. and with it SiteAdvisor and Spoofstick.

PeerGuardian could help you in the same way 

If you are going to pay, then get the best.

Sure: avast! Professional version 

[JerryM]

Hi Tech,

Thanks for the reply.
[agree... but for me detection is not the *only* thing to pay attention... performance, configurability, ...
By the way, avast Home and Pro version "detection" will be the same in most circunstances.]

While I must agree that detection is not the only thing, assuming that the AV works well on my system, it is the single most important thing. The only reason we use an Av is for protection. Obviously, if an AV causes conflicts and system breakdowns it is not satisfactory no matter the detection rate.

But in my case at least, I have not recently tried an AV that did not run well on my system. The last ones that I have trialed were KAV 6 (Which I now  have on my desktop.), Avast, NOD 32, and F-Secure (Which I now have on my laptop.)

All have run well, and I have not had to make adjustments, such as turning some part of the protection off, to make them run well.
So, it is all to the good to get one that has the best detection rates. With the last test of the PDM module by AV Comparatives, KAV has a detection rate overall of over 99%. If one is going to buy an AV, it makes sense to me to get the best detection rate since all run well on my system. It certainly appears that KAV is the best.

I have stated previously that the area where Avast falls short is in the area of trojans. I am not sure, but I have the impression that the greatest threats now are trojans. I am willing to be corrected as it is just an impression without any data to support it. A good AT like Ewido running in real time helps offset the lack of trojan detection.

All AVs are not equal. Some are more configuarable than others, some are free, and some are more expensive. There are considerable differences in detection rates, and that is the primary reason I have any anti-malware.

I have not heard of PeerGuardian, and will take a look at it. Thanks.

Best,
Jerry

[Lisandro]

KAV 6 (Which I now  have on my desktop.), Avast, NOD 32, and F-Secure (Which I now have on my laptop.)

Very good antivirus indeed... I have a particular love to NOD32 

I have stated previously that the area where Avast falls short is in the area of trojans. I am not sure, but I have the impression that the greatest threats now are trojans. I am willing to be corrected as it is just an impression without any data to support it. A good AT like Ewido running in real time helps offset the lack of trojan detection.

I still use and recommend ewido a lot... I do believe in layered defense.
I'll love that avast team heard your words 

[ardvark]

My own logic, maybe flawed, is that everyone cannot or will not afford a paid AV. Sometimes I wonder how one affords one or more computers, and cannot pay for an AV.

I think that there is a lot of general ignorance to computer security issues. From what I have seen, most folks don't take virus protection very seriously, at least until they get infected, have to reformat and lose all their data.

As to affordability, I would be willing to venture that a high percentage of those, like myself, who use the free AV programs REFUSE to pay for for protection even if it does have better detection rates, etc. I take great issue with the pricing structure of most AV's. Having to pay $40.00 to $100.00 for the program itself and THEN pay an additional fee PER year just to get updates is totally unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, it's price gouging and should be made illegal. But I will stop here before I get further on my soapbox 

This is from one American's perspective, I would be interested in how this problem is perceived from those in other lands.

Best Regards...
 

[JerryM]

Good Morning, Ardvark.

I got a chuckle out of your post.

[As to affordability, I would be willing to venture that a high percentage of those, like myself, who use the free AV programs REFUSE to pay for for protection even if it does have better detection rates, etc. I take great issue with the pricing structure of most AV's. Having to pay $40.00 to $100.00 for the program itself and THEN pay an additional fee PER year just to get updates is totally unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, it's price gouging and should be made illegal. But I will stop here before I get further on my soapbox  Grin]

Is this a case of, "I'll show 'em if it kills me!" ? 

I am sure it is not in your case, as I suspect you understand enough about security to do what will keep your computers safe.
I freely acknowledge that the free AVs will provide sufficient safety if one is a "safe" user, and layers his security.
Although I am a very safe user, I concluded that I am more comfortable with the best as I can determine it.

Avast is, in my mind the best of the free ones, even though Avira has a higher detection rate. My impression is that Avira has more problems with updating and maybe others.

I do not agree that it is price gouging to charge for the program and then annual updates. My own view is that it requires programmers and people who are skilled to keep the program software up to date, and the virus definitions up to date so we can stay ahead of the scum who cause us so many problems.

I do not see how a company accomplishes that without someone footing the bill. How would you work that out if you owned an AV company? This is not an argument per se, but just curious how you see a company surviving without an income? Maybe there is an income I do not see.

Thanks for the reply, and it is a good thing that there are a few companies who will provide freebies in the security area. I use some myself.

Regards,
Jerry

[ardvark]

Is this a case of, "I'll show 'em if it kills me!" ? 

I am sure it is not in your case, as I suspect you understand enough about security to do what will keep your computers safe.
I freely acknowledge that the free AVs will provide sufficient safety if one is a "safe" user, and layers his security.
Although I am a very safe user, I concluded that I am more comfortable with the best as I can determine it.

Avast is, in my mind the best of the free ones, even though Avira has a higher detection rate. My impression is that Avira has more problems with updating and maybe others.

I do not agree that it is price gouging to charge for the program and then annual updates. My own view is that it requires programmers and people who are skilled to keep the program software up to date, and the virus definitions up to date so we can stay ahead of the scum who cause us so many problems.

I do not see how a company accomplishes that without someone footing the bill. How would you work that out if you owned an AV company? This is not an argument per se, but just curious how you see a company surviving without an income? Maybe there is an income I do not see.

Hi Jerry...

You could call it that

I "layer" as best I can with the free tools available and I really don't need more than that since I don't consider myself an "adventerous" surfer. What I have works well.

With respect to your counter opinion on the pricing structures, I think that's a case of agreeing to disagree.  I'm probably in the minority with my feelings but that will not change them. The updates are PART of the program in which you purchase, not separate. The annual fees, my opinion again, are wholesale profiteering. I refuse to contribute to that.  Let the CEO's "foot the bill."

I do not think there is any hidden income and I believe any AV who offered the updates free of charge (for the lifetime of the product) would put themselves in an advantageous financial position. A LOT of customers would go for that even if detections weren't in the top tier.

I think mandating AV companies to charge only for the program itself would force them to not only develop the very best possible but also keep a VERY CLOSE tab on customer concerns and requests. In other words, if I have a gripe, it's "Yes, Sir, we will fix that right away and our technicians will be keeping in contact with you. Thank you VERY much, Sir, for continuing to do business with us as we would not exist without your patronage!" Alongside this would be an aggressive marketing campaign vying for consumer dollars and trying their best to tell customers why they should choose their product.

Either the AV's take customers seriously or they sink, it's as simple as that. And here you get a glimpse into ardvark's preferred business model. 

Best regards...