I try to check updated assessment results for the products I run, not just when I'm in Purchase Mode, and I know that if an independent assessment found that my environment was running a product where a given iteration went pear-shaped, I'd like to know. One of your points was interesting, where you mention that sometimes depending on the assessment there is "an option to pay to keep the results private, usually as a short term evaluation." I'm not trying to paint conspiracy theories or call out any given vendor or test, but it seems that those tests would run counter to the other point you made about AMTSO Guidelines, specifically to fairness and transparency specifically, if a product tests particularly badly, the result should be public as much as an awesome result.
I figured as much, and I appreciate the time you took to provide the response that you did (with the extra details I omitted from my quote above )) How easy it is to work with the tester (do they provide data/samples in a timely way? do they accept and respond appropriately to wrote:.
The popularity and PR reach of the test.The quality of the reports produced by the tester (transparency, detail, etc.).The conditions of the test (e.g., are all products tested at default settings, or can settings be customized to the test).sometimes there's also an option to pay to keep the results private, usually as a short-term evaluation) How much it costs to participate (often vendors are included automatically in these public tests, but can pay to be an "active" participant, with the right to review and challenge results, see the malware samples they missed, etc.Whether the testing process complies with the AMTSO Standard Opens a new window, which ensures a greater degree of transparency and fairness, and follows AMTSO Guidelines Opens a new window for effective and ethical testing.The methodology of the test (how realistic is it? will it unfairly bias against our product? how well do scores reflect the ).Some of the specific factors that go into the decision include: We don't always have a choice, but when we do, we follow our Principles of Third Party Testing Opens a new window: In all seriousness, and out of genuine curiosity, what sort of factors influence a company's participation in this? (from Sophos' perspective, at any rate) Until someone else consistently claims the top spot then I will use them ) I don't know why I don't see more people talking about Bitdefender, either people don't keep up with the third-party testings or they are too dedicated to the familiarity of their home team. Yes all the integration and and easy management is nice and valuable (which Bitdefender does not lack and continues to make great advances) but detection rating should be far and away your #1 consideration. Sophos doesn't even participate when it comes to Home AV, and their Enterprise Endpoint detection rating might give you a clue as to why, 89% for the Proactive Protection Test. For Enterprise Endpoint, Bitdefender easily beat the big boy names of Kaspersky, Symantec, Sophos, McAfee, Cylance, Carbon Black, CrowdStrike, etc. They scored 100% on AV-Test 5 times straight this year. I just checked AV Comparatives most recent results and Bitdefender scored 99.9% detection ratings in both the Real World Protection Test (Consumer Products) and Proactive Protection Test (Enterprise Endpoints). When you get into sheer detection ratings, Bitdefender has been wiping the board for the last two years and in the top three the last 5 years. You just missed Bitdefender 's yearly New Years deal where they offer their Family Pack for $60 (1/2 price) which you can run on up to 15 devices.
0 kommentar(er)
