Hi Darts now that I know who you are as you posted the same Question at the Prevx Forum at Wilders I will just Quote what Joe has said!

 

"I constantly watch our support inbox and we've seen nothing but positive improvements overall, with fewer support cases, dramatically fewer infections, and much better performance across all of our users.



I agree that there's always room for improvement with security but we certainly are doing better than this test would show. Even look at AVTest - we're consistently doing very well there.



I don't have the answers for this yet but we're working on finding out why this is so unrepresentative of what our other data is showing."

 

And I'm sure the Webroot support members here will say the same!

 

TH

 

---

I hope so because i am getting a bit worried of these results because i like too feel save on my computer and Av-Comparatives is a realy good and reiabel site with there results. I am slowly thinking about too move too a other antivirus. I hope Webroot wi'll anwser about when they wi'll think when the results are better because there antivirus i one off the expensive antivirus that there is but with the worse detection at this moment in these tests.

 

Greats,

 

rnuis

---

Hi - This is Mike Malloy with Webroot. I am responsible for product development. Its easy to be concerned when you see test results like the recent AV Comparatives tests. We believe that these types of tests do not simulate a real user's experience with SecureAnywhere.

 

I feel like the parents whose child gets good grades in school but does poorly on tests. Tests like these were designed for the traditional, signature-based AV products and use samples provided by the vendors in the test. For example, in one recent test they put us on a PC with 985,000 pieces of malware which had been provided by some of the vendors. If your computer had nearly a million viruses on it, it would no longer be a computer! In the case of AV-C, I have asked my team to work more closely with them to understand their methodology and see if it could be made to more closely resemble what actual human users see. I respect AV-C and the individuals in it. I am concerned that these tests are not providing consumers the information they need to make an informed security decision. I also note that some other vendors have begun withdrawing from tests like these because they no longer represent (if they ever did) what actual users might see in terms of protection.

On the other hand, we're seeing stunning statistics in our customer satisfaction and overall efficacy. We survey a large group of customers every month. In our April survey of 958 customers, 96.6% said they were likely or highly likely to recommend WSA to their friends and family (while only 3 people said they were highly unlikely to.) Because of the Webroot cloud intelligence engine, we know exactly what we catch and exactly what we don't catch across our users and we're very proud about how well it's working so far. Seeing tests not accurately reflecting this is disheartening and a concern for us but as we learn more about how these tests work, we're starting to understand why our existing systems don't gel accurately with their methodology.

 

We are confident that you and the millions of other SecureAnywhere customers are getting the best protection in the security industry.

---

Hi Mike,



Ok thanks for your great reply i realy find it great that you react here on the forum , i also like how the product works but in these tests Avast , Avira , Kaspersky , Bitdefender scores realy good with the same test and problems that you say here why do they score better then Webroot then?? And if i am correct i also don't need a seccond layer of antivirus too protect me when i have Webroot SecureAnywhere on my system?? Beacause i wan't too rely on one Antivirus and do not need too hav two on my system.

I hope fot a anwser back from you.



Greats,



rnuis

---

Hi again. As my post says, SecureAnywhere does an outstanding job protecting our customers. Where we appear to see problems is when presented with very large numbers of malware samples which is a situation regular users never encounter. I cant speak for those other products but maybe they have created versions designed just for the tests. 

---

@ wrote:

For example, in one recent test they put us on a PC with 985,000 pieces of malware which had been provided by some of the vendors. If your computer had nearly a million viruses on it, it would no longer be a computer! In the case of AV-C, I have asked my team to work more closely with them to understand their methodology and see if it could be made to more closely resemble what actual human users see.

Your comments remind me of what Eugene Kaspersky had to say regarding AV tests a few months back on his blog:

 

"It stands to reason that it should be done in an environment that mirrors reality as closely as possible. The methodology of a good test must be based on the most common and widespread scenarios of what users face in real life. Everything else is incidental stuff that just doesn’t matter."

 

Source.

---

I agree with what Mike said, if you test the latest zero day malware from malware domain list webroot secure anywhere complete blocked all the ones I I went to. Zero day malware is the biggest threat. This is proof to me that it is very effective.

---