This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.
Please note that by continuing to use this site you consent to the terms of our Privacy and Data Protection Policy.
Accept

Malware Protection Test Enterprise March 2019 – Testresult

Date March 2019
Language English
Last Revision May 13th 2019

Release date 2019-05-15
Revision date 2019-05-13
Test Period March 2019
Number of Testcases 1311
Online with cloud connectivity checkbox-checked
Update allowed checkbox-checked
False Alarm Test included checkbox-checked
Platform/OS Microsoft Windows

This report is an excerpt of the Business Security Test 2019 (March – June). For more details, please click here.

Introduction

The Malware Protection Test assesses a security program’s ability to protect a system against infection by malicious files before, during or after execution. The methodology used for each product tested is as follows. Prior to execution, all the test samples are subjected to on-access scans (if this feature is available) by the security program (e.g. while copying the files over the network). Any samples that have not been detected by the on-access scanner are then executed on the test system, with Internet/cloud access available, to allow e.g. behavioral detection features to come into play. If a product does not prevent or reverse all the changes made by a particular malware sample within a given time period, that test case is considered to be a miss. For this test, 1,311 recent malware samples were used.

Tested Products

Test Results

The following chart shows the results of the Business Malware Protection Test:

False positive (false alarm) test with common business software

A false alarm test done with common business software was also performed. As expected, all the tested products had zero false alarms on common business software.

  Malware Protection Rate False Alarms on common business software
Avast, Bitdefender, Panda, Sophos, SparkCognition 99.9% 0
CISCO, Symantec, Trend Micro 99.8% 0
K7, McAfee 99.7% 0
Seqrite 99.6% 0
FireEye, Microsoft 99.5% 0
CrowdStrike, Endgame, VIPRE 99.2% 0
Kaspersky Lab 99.0% 0
Fortinet 98.9% 0
ESET 98.5% 0

In order to better evaluate the products’ detection accuracy and file detection capabilities (ability to distinguish good files from malicious files), we also performed a false alarm test on non-business software and uncommon files. This is provided mainly just as additional information, especially for organisations which often use uncommon non-business software or their own self-developed software. The results do not affect the overall test score or the Approved Business Product award. The false alarms found were promptly fixed by the respective vendors.

FP rate
Number of FPs on
non-business software
Very low
0 - 5
Low
6 - 25
Medium
26 - 50
High
51 - 100
Very high
101 - 200
Remarkably high
> 200
  FP rate on non-business software
CISCO, ESET, FireEye, Fortinet, Kaspersky Lab, McAfee, Microsoft, Seqrite, Symantec Very low
Low
Avast, Bitdefender, K7, Sophos, Trend Micro, VIPRE Medium
Panda, SparkCognition High
CrowdStrike, Endgame Very high
Remarkably high

 

Copyright and Disclaimer

This publication is Copyright © 2019 by AV-Comparatives ®. Any use of the results, etc. in whole or in part, is ONLY permitted after the explicit written agreement of the management board of AV-Comparatives prior to any publication. AV-Comparatives and its testers cannot be held liable for any damage or loss, which might occur as result of, or in connection with, the use of the information provided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic data, but a liability for the correctness of the test results cannot be taken by any representative of AV-Comparatives. We do not give any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a specific purpose of any of the information/content provided at any given time. No one else involved in creating, producing or delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or consequential damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related to, the use or inability to use, the services provided by the website, test documents or any related data.

For more information about AV-Comparatives and the testing methodologies, please visit our website.

AV-Comparatives
(May 2019)