Product of the year from av comparatives

[Jeremy]

No doubt Kaspersky is good AV software and deserves an award, but as Ashwin stated, I do not completely trust these tests. For example, Norton received all advanced ratings but it wasn't mentioned other than a quick overview of the program. The only bad point it received was the automated help desk. But in my experience with Norton, I was always able to talk to a live agent. Also, those tests were very limited. They didn't discuss some other important factors of the AV products tested such as system resource use, false detection rates, etc. And what really puzzles me are the retrospective tests. Why? It shouldn't be about what a product could do in the past but what it is capable of now. I noticed quite a few vendors opted-out of those tests and I can understand why.

I am not completely arguing with their results, some of the products they claim are at the top are in fact good (i.e. Kaspersky). I just think that these tests seemed biased to me.

[Ashwin]

LOL ash. Hmm good Kaspersky is v good. But ash we won kis right so why purchase??

What I won was a 1 user license, I have 3 computers at home. So, I bought a 3 user license.

Btw, I removed the pdf link from the first post. They don't allow it, so I added a link to the Summary results instead.

Quoting their policy

You Must Be Registered and Logged On To View "URL" BBCode Contents...

It is not allowed to offer the results in any form in full or in parts on a website for download,or to take parts of it into own tests or to use the data ulterior without a written permission of the management board of AV-Comparatives.

No doubt Kaspersky is good AV software and deserves an award, but as Ashwin stated, I do not completely trust these tests. For example, Norton received all advanced ratings but it wasn't mentioned other than a quick overview of the program. The only bad point it received was the automated help desk. But in my experience with Norton, I was always able to talk to a live agent. Also, those tests were very limited. They didn't discuss some other important factors of the AV products tested such as system resource use, false detection rates, etc. And what really puzzles me are the retrospective tests. Why? It shouldn't be about what a product could do in the past but what it is capable of now. I noticed quite a few vendors opted-out of those tests and I can understand why.

I am not completely arguing with their results, some of the products they claim are at the top are in fact good (i.e. Kaspersky). I just think that these tests seemed biased to me.

Norton opted out in a couple of tests last year and hence weren't in line for their award, and I guess the same applies to others with the N/A ratings. Kaspersky was the over-all winner because they scored ADV+ in all of their tests. In my opinion, this was by no means a fair review.

And Kaspersky was the top recommendation in an Android test by AV comparatives which drew a lot of criticism. They failed to review top Antivirus products like LookOut, Dr.Web, etc. That was definitely a biased review.

I am not against Kaspersky of course but I dislike such unfair reviews.

P.S: FYI, Kaspersky have a free version for Android users,I know that Avi is already using it
I'll make a thread about it in the Android section for our Android users