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 .
Some of our partner services are located in the United States. According to the case law of the European Court of Justice, there is currently no adequate data protection in the USA. There is a risk that your data will be controlled and monitored by US authorities. You cannot bring any effective legal remedies against this.

Malware Protection Test Enterprise September 2023 – Testresult

Date September 2023
Language English
Last Revision October 10th 2023

Release date 2023-10-15
Revision date 2023-10-10
Test Period September 2023
Number of Testcases 1,009
Online with cloud connectivity checkbox-checked
Update allowed checkbox-checked
False Alarm Test included checkbox-checked
Platform/OS Microsoft Windows


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. behavioural 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, 1,009 recent malware samples were used.

Tested Products

The “ENS” version of Trellix in this test uses the erstwhile McAfee engine (now owned by Trellix), opposed to the “HX” version which uses the FireEye engine (McAfee Enterprise and FireEye were merged into Trellix in 2022).

Test Results

False positive (false alarm) test with common business software

A false alarm test done with common business software was also performed. All tested products had zero false alarms on common business software.

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

  Malware Protection Rate False Alarms on common business software
VMware 100% 0
ESET 99.9% 0
Bitdefender, VIPRE 99.8% 0
Avast, CISCO, G Data, Kaspersky, Trellix 99.7% 0
CrowdStrike 99.6% 0
Microsoft 99.5% 0
Elastic 99.1% 0
Cybereason 98.6% 0
Sophos 98.3% 0
94.8% 0
94.6% 0


False-Positives Test

In order to better evaluate the products’ detection accuracy and file detection capabilities (ability to distinguish benign files from malicious files), we also performed a false alarm test on non-business software and uncommon files. Results are shown in the tables below; the false alarms found were promptly fixed by the respective vendors. However, organisations which often use uncommon or non-business software, or their own self-developed software, might like to consider these results. Products are required to have an FP rate on non-business files below the Remarkably High threshold in order to be approved. This is to ensure that tested products do not achieve higher protection scores by using settings that might cause excessive levels of false positives.

FP rate Number of FPs on
non-business files
Very Low 0-5
Low 6-15
Medium/Average 16-35
High 36-75
Very High 76-125
Remarkably high >125


  FP rate on non-business files
Avast, Bitdefender, ESET, G Data, Kaspersky, Microsoft, Trellix, VIPRE Very low
Cybereason, WatchGuard Low
CrowdStrike, K7, VMware Medium/Average
Elastic High
CISCO, Sophos Very high
Remarkably high


Copyright and Disclaimer

This publication is Copyright © 2023 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.

(October 2023)