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.