Avast! scored 99.2% detection rate in the new MRG test

[sampler]

Don't know if this is already posted, but Avast! was once again tested by Malware Research Group and it scored 99.2% detection rate on 395.844 malware samples. Avast! got a better result then Kaspersky, Norton, BitDefender, Nod32, F-Secure, McAfee.........

The full test results are available on http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2

Once again a great result from Avast, keep it going guys

[DavidR]

Yes it has

[Omid Farhang]

hope version 5 break that %99.6 and then go up and up, I know it would never be %100 in real, no one cannot, but hope we see %99.99 

[dansorin]

the malware samples is quite small. I trust nothing else but av-comparatives.

[Lisandro]

Another test... following its own methodology... and so on...
avast is not bad eh?

[gery]

can't see the page for some reasons is there any other way to see it? but soo good to know this. what about avg how did it score

[Pondus]

can't see the page for some reasons is there any other way to see it? but soo good to know this. what about avg how did it score 

Avira 99.6
AVG  96.9
Norton 99
McAfee 98.1
NOD32 97.6

[gery]

thank you very much

[Mike Buxton]

Hi,

Factually, the top 5 were:
99.6% 1st a-squared
99.6% 1st Avira
99.4% 3rd G Data
99.2% 4th Avast
99.0% 5th Norton

Visit:
http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/scanner/
for a more recent (and for many a controversial) test. 

My regards

[YoKenny]

Hi,

Factually, the top 5 were:
99.6% 1st a-squared
99.6% 1st Avira
99.4% 3rd G Data
99.2% 4th Avast
99.0% 5th Norton

Visit:
http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/scanner/
for a more recent (and for many a controversial) test. 

My regards

I would believe those results about the same as the results of a test of Norton anti virus by Symantec.

[Lisandro]

for many a controversial test

Not independent, for sure...

[Mike Buxton]

Hi,

YoKenny, the order of the top players is identical in both tests except that Kaspersky comes in 4th in the second test. The real question is about methodology and interpretation - not belief.

Tech, I, at least, had hoped for some intelligent and helpful commentary from your good self.

My regards

[Lisandro]

Tech, I, at least, had hoped for some intelligent and helpful commentary from your good self.

Mike, what should I have written? I did not read the test methodology in details, but, as far I'm seeing, it's conducted by the winner of the test. Should we really think it's independent?

[Mike Buxton]

Hi Tech,

"Note

This test was an Emsi Software internal comparison and does not represent an objective assessment of the detection performance of a-squared Anti-Malware. It stands to reason that our own in-house product will produce the best detection rate against our own Malware samples."

The above is a verbatim extract (except that the word "Note" was more prominent).

If you do not have the time, or the inclination, to read the report there is no point in your adding another comment.

My regards

[Lisandro]

This test was an Emsi Software internal comparison and does not represent an objective assessment of the detection performance of a-squared Anti-Malware. It stands to reason that our own in-house product will produce the best detection rate against our own Malware samples."

The above is a verbatim extract (except that the word "Note" was more prominent).

Makes sense.

If you do not have the time, or the inclination, to read the report there is no point in your adding another comment.

Sorry, it was not my intend to upset, bore, bug   or hassle...