Thu Sep 7, 2006 5:07AM EDT
See Comments (19)
Testing antivirus software is always a dicey process, but it's a worthwhile exercise. I've never seen a test as exhaustive as the one performed by this site, which put 147,000 virus samples on a PC and ran 58 virus scanner applications to see which was "best."
I say "best" because I don't think the best virus scanner is the one that necessarily mean the application that caught the most viruses. How can that be? Because 99.9% of viruses are not "in the wild" at any one time. Crooks know that most viruses are caught by experts in a few weeks or months and antivirus software is eventually updated to catch them. It just isn't worth the trouble to circulate an old virus.
The result is that only a few dozen viruses are typically circulating at any one time. This means that a good antivirus program doesn't necessarily have to catch every virus, it just has to catch all the ones circulating right now.
Now don't get me wrong: Catching all 147,000 viruses is good, but catching all 100 viruses that are current threats is even better. Since we don't know which viruses were caught by each scanner and which were not, the results on the virus.gr site should be taken with a grain of salt. To wit, here are the top five, along with the percent of viruses they caught:
1. Kaspersky version 6.0.0.303 - 99.62%
2. Active Virus Shield by AOL version 6.0.0.299 - 99.62%
3. F-Secure 2006 version 6.12.90 - 96.86%
4. BitDefender Professional version 9 - 96.63%
5. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 95.98%
Some old guard names in there, but some surprises, too: An AOL virus scanner ties for #1? Wow.
Where are the big guns? McAfee's at #13 and Norton's at #22. Not great, but again, don't place too much stock in a test like this. What really concerns me is the stuff at the bottom of the list. I've never heard of Abacre 1.4, but with a 0.0% detection rating, I'm not rushing to install it.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Ms Joycler I am not surprised at Norton doing any good, I used Norton before and it didn't find the virus I had. AVG Anti-virus is the one that found the virus, so I cancelled Norton
Oh yes, yes, yes, Norton is only fair, at best - key relentless advertising is what made it so popular. It has seriously failed me twice. No sooner than I upgraded & installed Norton Internet Security 2006, it started havoc and that night it certainly crashed my system, cuasing extensive damage, loss of material, and over $384 in cost. I'd like to take them to small claims court.
How does "Defender Pro" rank? Is it any good or am I wasting my time? Thanks.
I have had a smooth running PC for years using free protection from Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot. Although, Counterspy found some stuff neither those 2 found. I recently was chosen to use theor new Beta 2.0. It found 38 infected more files, although none were critical. i may keep an eye on counterspy because the way it did so well a year ago. Until then, AdAwre and SpyBot are always updating and do well.
Norton has really gone downhill IMO. The internet security and AV software has become so bloated, slows system performance and extremely difficult to remove once installed. You just about have to reinstall Windows to get rid of it cleanly. I used Norton for 10 years until I kicked it to the curb for BitDefender.
Can you comment on Windows Live OneCare? And Webroot Spysweeper? And an optimal frequency to set automatic updates for? Thanks.
Ok, Am I missing something here. Where is the complete list? How did Panda Software do? I have been using it for a while and have had zero issues since the install. Any comments or critique about Panda?
HOW can i save this page to "my tech" ??? I have a Y! ID, I'm signed in, WHY isn't there a link next to the send to friend and post comments links
For the full list click the "147,000 virus samples" link above. Panda placed at #25
1 Posted by hippocrates_nv on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:19PM EDT Report Abuse
I am surprised Norton 2006 did not make it to the top. I've been using it for so many years now and it's good at catching viruses and blocking infection. It even fared well with the document.exe virus which several Antivirus software failed to handle well (some would detect but could not clean it and several others could not even detect it). It detected and cleaned viruses from my disks which got infected as it transports files from 1 PC to the other. Perhaps, the Norton being used here is not updated that's why it lagged behind.