Defense against 50,000 Trojans and other malware

In the protection test over 6 months, the packages were required to detect over 1,000 zero-day malware samples, which the lab freshly unearthed regularly on the Internet and discovered in e-mails. That is the so-called real-world test. In addition, each package in each month also had to detect and fend off the repeatedly newly formed AV-TEST reference set: this amounted to over 50,000 additional malware samples.

6 products fended off the huge onslaught of attackers 100 percent in each of the two test phases. They were the security packages from Avast, AVG, Bitdefender, F-Secure, Kaspersky and Norton. This was followed nearly flawlessly by packages from Avira and McAfee with 99.9 percent and ESET with 99.7 percent. But all of them managed to deliver 100 percent on the reference set tests. Thus, all of the products mentioned received the full 6 points.

The security suites from K7 Computing, Microsoft and Protected.net committed minor errors in the real-world test and exhibited detection rates between 99.6 and 99.3 percent. However: all of the packages mentioned flawlessly completed the tests with the reference set. That is why the products received 5.8 and 5.7 points respectively for their final result.

Only EnigmaSoft committed more detection errors and thus had important points taken off. The result: 98.1 and 99.9 percent. The product only achieved 5.3 points on the protection score.

Who slows Windows down – and who doesn't

Perfect protection of Windows is vital, but it shouldn't overburden the PC performance. That is why the lab evaluates on both a standard and high-end PC without a security package how long specified routines take, thus arriving at reference times. The routines include visiting over 1,500 websites, along with the installation and launch of over 100 applications. What’s more, the testers additionally copy tens of thousands of files locally and onto the network.

For 7 of the 13 system watchdogs, the testers were satisfied with the extremely low additional system load. They came from ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky, McAfee, Avast, Microsoft and K7 Computing. All these products received the top score of 6 points for their final result.

AVG and Bitdefender performed the routines a bit more slowly: both received 5.8 points. Avira and Norton also required somewhat more resources: both 5.7 points. Protected.net and EnigmaSoft demanded even more attention from the system. As a result, the two products only received 5.5 and 5.3 points respectively out of a possible 6.

What now: friend or foe?

Each protection software application is required to precisely filter out which files belong to an attacker and which are harmless and thus do not belong in a quarantine. In the test of friend-foe detection, i.e. false alarms, the products had to show how they would respond under everyday conditions. To do so, with active protection the lab visited thousands of websites that posed no threat. In addition, the team installed dozens of popular software applications and launched them. Finally, the lab copied over 1 million harmless files onto each test system – a routine repeated multiple times in the endurance test over 6 months.

The result of this test section is highly interesting, as many users assume that the products will be good at distinguishing between friend and foe. This assumption was also correct for the products from Avira, ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky, McAfee, Microsoft and Protected.net. For millions of files, they either operated flawlessly or only slipped up on one occasion. For this good detection, the packages each earned the full 6 points.

The products from Avast, AVG, Bitdefender and Norton were a bit too restrictive, wrongly classifying a few harmless files. These minor errors cost points: all of them received 5.8 out of 6 points; K7 Computing even only 5.7 points.

EnigmaSoft sounded the alarm too often on innocuous files. This regularly cost a number of valuable points in the end. In the test for usability, i.e. false alarms, the package only scored 4.2 out of 6 points.

In the long run, only powerful protection helps

The endurance test involving protection software under Windows 10 and 11 clearly demonstrates that you can almost always depend on many products. The packages from ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky and McAfee never got flustered in the many test months from March to August 2024. They worked reliably, thus earning the maximum point score of 18 points.

The security package from Avast barely missed the top score: 17.8 points. Coming in just behind it were Avira and Microsoft with 17.7 points, AVG and Bitdefender with 17.6 points, as well as K7 Computing and Norton with 17.5 points. Even Protected.net with 17.2 points still made a strong showing. Only in the case of EnigmaSoft there is some room for improvement: the 14.8 points achieved are somewhat too weak.

Some readers may be missing a few well-known names in the endurance test, such as AhnLab, Bkav, Microworld, Net Protector, PC Matic, Quick Heal, Surfshark or Trend Micro. This is due to the fact that they participated in individual tests, but not all tests from March to August 2024.

Additional results of the monthly tests sorted by manufacturers can be found on the AV-TEST website with test results under "The best Windows antivirus software for home users". At the bottom of the page, there is also the item "All tested manufacturers – listed by year/month". If you click on the logo of a manufacturer there, you'll receive an overview of all – the present and previous –  tests from AV-TEST.