In 2009, Symantec ran a full-page advertisement in PC Magazine
explaining to readers that because Norton has the most virus definition
updates (222 per day) they also have the best detection score of 97.9%
compared to all others. We at AVAST liked the ad for a better reason:
we had only 1 update per day and were second best after Norton in
detection. Look at the advert snap shot.
However, driven by curiosity I looked up the actual test from AV-Comparatives.org
and to my surprise learned that Norton has used a decent dose of
creative-results interpretation by ignoring Avira and G-Data, both of
which scored even better than Norton in detection!
I thought this level of creativity would be difficult to beat but I was wrong!
Our resellers pointed us to these comparison documents from Eset:
- Eset vs. avast! Pro Antivirus
- Eset vs. avast! Internet Security
- Eset vs. avast! Exchange
Each comparison starts with features overview and, since the features
are based on "vendor Marketing Materials available online” and each
brand is using different feature names, I might have some sympathy for
some of the misinterpretations. But several of them are just screaming
inaccuracy:
- Yes, avast! 4 Exchange Server is using heuristic detection…
- Yes, indeed avast! has a sample submission system (avast! CommunityIQ) ….
- Yes, avast! has a fast scan (Intelligent Scan) that increases the speed up to 80% …
Read the website. It’s there…
But the real horror was to plow through the listed detection and
performance indicators. Reading these, It must be "clear” to anyone that
based on the cited tests of AV-Comparatives, AV-Test, and Virus
Bulletin that avast! can’t measure up. But guess what – it is not the
case at all. It is just a highly creative interpretation of facts.
For starters, all tests listed here to prove the superiority of Eset
are dated 2008 and 2009. But the actual products compared (avast! Pro
Antivirus and avast! Internet Security) were only launched in January
2010. To prove that Eset has better scanning speed, it argues (!) by
listing a Windows 2008 Server Edition test from 2008!
Boot-time overhead is argued based on an AV-Comparatives test from October 2008!
And it gets better. When you check the actual tests, you will find a
False Positive score of 33 listed for avast! for all tests in 2009. But
the real number in the same tests for Eset is not 9 (as listed), but
25. A typo?
And my favorite: the documents argue that Eset has superior
heuristics detection as documented in AV-Comparatives test. But it fails
to mention the compulsory requirement of AV-Comparatives to notice all
who publish the results and explain about the limits of this test. In
nutshell, the test does not measure the impact of behavior blockers,
which limits the data value. As if this wasn’t enough, the cited tests
from 2008 and 2009 correctly list the Eset score at 55% but the score
for avast! is incorrect. A typo again?
So let’s look at the more relevant 2010 tests and see how we do
vis-à-vis with Eset. It also needs to be said that the 2010 tests
include avast! Free Antivirus and how it compares to all other paid-for products, including Eset Nod32 AntiVirus.
Detection:
Aug 2010: On-Demand Test AV Comparatives.org
avast! Free Antivirus 5.0 99.3%
Nod32 Antivirus 4.2 98.6%
Dec 2010: VB100 Comparative Review on W7 (On-Demand / On-Access)
avast! Free Antivirus 5.0 97.7% / 98.2%
Nod32 Antivirus 4.2 97.1% / 97.5%
Heuristic Detection:
Since the heuristic test has its specifics as described above, we could
look at the Proactive detection tested by Virus Bulletin (heuristic
capability of the application = detection of new malware with an
outdated virus-definition database).
Dec 2010: VB100 Comparative Review on W7 (Proactive Detection)
avast! Free Antivirus 5.0 80.65%
Nod32 Antivirus 4.2 81.29%
Speed:
Aug 2010: AV Comparatives.org
avast! Free Antivirus 5.0 17 MB/s
Nod32 Antivirus 4.2 10 MB/s
Dec 2010: VB100 Comparative Review on W7
avast! Free Antivirus 5.0 28 MB/s
Nod32 Antivirus 4.2 12 MB/s
To avoid any doubts, Eset is an excellent product and has an
impressive record of achieving the best scores in various tests and
awards. But in my opinion, because of its record and its reputation, it
would be better to stop "creative interpretations” and use the facts as
they are. Avast Blog
|