Webroot nowhere to be seen in AVComparatives or AV Test

Cannot edit, so I continue here;
 
Any news about being tested by an independent third party?

WRSA has figured in some tests but is still not making a regular appearance in them. This may be either because Webroot is not being invited or they are not putting themselves forwards because the tests to be used are still not seen as being unbiased, i.e., do not disadvantage WRSA because its approach to malware protection is so different from other vendors/products.

After 3 years , Webroot should have found a third party testing entity which is able to test and certify somehow that Webroot does, indeed, what it claims to do.
 
Other than that, is just their word against everyone else.
 
By the way, I just developed a software , "notepad. exe" which is able to offer you 100% antivirus protection.
Just send me $ 25 for a lifetime copy.:D

It is not down to Webroot finding the testing entity but rather whether there are any testing entities prepared to 'listen' to Webroot about what it considers an 'unlevel playing field', and then do something about it. Why would one submit one's software to what one knows is an 'inappropriate' & 'flawed' test of its capabilities?
 
And as for "Other than that, is just their word against everyone else"...well, I would suggest that some of the 'independent' testing entities are far from that. ;)

AV-Comparatives is now an ISO 9001 certified organisation; over 20 antiviruses are tested monthly.
In spite of " revolutionary approach" implemented by Webroot, non of them ever tried to use the same technology as Webroot.
If you ask 100 losers, 99 of them will claim the the "test" was not accurate enough for them.... this is a typical answer.
Webroot has to prove its efficiency in a typical test not in one specifically designed for it.
 
Good luck with this approach.

You are well entitled to your views and approach on this but to be honest 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'...in other words does an AV/AM/IS protect one in real life and I can say that WRSA in all the years I have had it installed has saved my bacon on a number of occasions/it has never failed me...and that is all the proof or justification I need and most users need.
 
Webroot's unique approach is proprietary (and I am certain that many would dearly love to get their hands on it...it was PrevX's back in the day but Webroot saw the potential and wisely snapped them up...and the rest is history)...hence why no one has ever tried to use it.
 
...and by the way, just for completeness, a ISO9001 certification means diddly squat in real terms...basically "ISO 9001 is the international standard that specifies requirements for a quality management system (QMS). Organizations use the standard to demonstrate the ability to consistently provide products and services that meet customer and regulatory requirements."
 
So it just means that a process is or processes are followed and consistently...but consistently re. WHAT! That is the key. So in essence it is pointless IMHO, and most certainly in terms of testing organisations.
 

Here is a similar issue ;
All new cars are tested by "Insurance Institute for Hyghway Safety" for crashworthiness  and  crash avoidance and mitigation.
 
Would you buy a car not tested and would trust only the manufacturer which would assure you that is perfectly safe to drive their cars? Probably not.
 
And anyone who would do it must be insane.
 
 
 

@ read this: https://community.webroot.com/t5/Announcements/Joint-message-from-AV-Comparatives-and-Webroot/td-p/17708

The message is signed by Mike Malloy, Webroot EVP Products and Strategy  alone and is neither  seen  nor endorsed on AV Comparatives website.
 
If it is a joint message, why is not signed by anyone frtom AV Comparatives?

@ wrote:
Here is a similar issue ;
All new cars are tested by "Insurance Institute for Hyghway Safety" for crashworthiness  and  crash avoidance and mitigation.
 
Would you buy a car not tested and would trust only the manufacturer which would assure you that is perfectly safe to drive their cars? Probably not.
 
And anyone who would do it must be insane.
 
 
 

Actually...I would...if it was a Volvo...because I know that Volvos are amongst the safest cars on the road...yet some of these testing organisations are not necessary as objetive as they should be.
 
But...whatever...you have your view and I have mine...and we will have to agree to differ.

One in three Volvos to be made in China.
see here:
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/volvo-s90-geely-holding-group-made-in-china-a7393771.html
 
So,you relly need to have your "Volvo" tested by somebody......

Beside the point...totally...but as I said previously...we agree to differ...and there is an end to it.
 
I am out of here as this thread has gone completely off topic.

OK then.
Just out of curiosity, are you in good terms with TripleHelix? I see no Kudos from him, which is unusual.
Bye, then.

@ wrote:
OK then.
Just out of curiosity, are you in good terms with TripleHelix? I see no Kudos from him, which is unusual.
Bye, then.

No I don't know him and don't care toooooo.

It’s true that WSA isn’t tested by AVT/AVC; there are several factors contributing to why this is.
 
Webroot chooses to not participate in mainstream AV testing primarily due to methodologies used within a given test. Simply put, these testers continue to only look at upfront blocking of threats, of which many if not most products tested detect 100% of the samples. A lack of testing key functionalities of Webroot where we provide protection can easily lead to a misrepresentation of our product. From a testing perspective, it is Webroot’s goal to earnestly seek & participate in testing where all levels of available protection are evaluated.