If tests are used as marketing tools, then they not even limited but deceptive. Meanwhile, others can show their own test results in this forum. Or do you think those are marketing tools, too?
That's an interesting question about the different kinds of tests we see. It brings up an important topic, testing methodology. Whether a test is a "marketing tool" or a useful benchmark depends less on who performs it and more on how it's performed.
Passionate community members who spend their own time testing products are commendable, and their results can be interesting case studies. For a test to be considered a reliable benchmark for comparing products, however, it needs to meet a few key criteria that professional labs are equipped to handle.
Realistic Threat Vectors
This is the most critical point. Most threats don't start from a ZIP file on your desktop. They arrive through multiple routes of infection. A comprehensive test must simulate these real-world scenarios.
Web-Based Threats
Does the product's web shield or browser extension block a malicious URL before the malware is ever downloaded?
Email-Based Threats
Does the email scanner detect and quarantine a malicious attachment or phishing link upon arrival?
Exploit-Based Threats
Can the product's behavioral analysis or exploit protection stop a fileless attack that leverages a software vulnerability (e.g., in a browser or Office document)?
Testing from a local folder only evaluates a single layer of defense, the on-demand or on-access file scanner. It completely bypasses the multiple, earlier layers of protection that are designed to prevent the threat from ever reaching the disk in the first place.
Large, Current, and Unbiased Sample Set
Labs like AV-TEST and SE Labs use automated systems to test against tens of thousands of newly discovered, "in-the-wild" malware samples every month. This scale is crucial to avoid bias and ensure the results are statistically significant.
Measuring the "Cost" of Security
A good test doesn't just measure protection. It also measures the side effects.
False Positives
How often does the product block legitimate software? A security tool that constantly gets in the way is a bad tool, even if its protection score is high.
Performance Impact
How much does the product slow down the computer during common tasks like launching applications, browsing the web, and copying files?
Conclusion
Community-driven tests are valuable for demonstrating how a specific product behaves against a specific set of samples in a specific scenario. They satisfy curiosity and showcase the passion within the security community.
However, for the purpose of making a general recommendation to the public, we must rely on tests that are comprehensive, repeatable, and simulate the entire infection chain. This is why the structured methodology of independent labs, despite any perceived flaws, remains the gold standard for consumer guidance. It's the difference between a controlled scientific experiment and an interesting hobbyist demonstration.
The Awareness Gap
For the general public, cybersecurity is a background task. They know they need protection, but the specific entities that test and validate these security products are deep in the weeds of a niche industry. Public awareness is typically limited to brand Names. People know names like Norton, McAfee, or Bitdefender because of decades of marketing, retail presence, and pre-installation deals with PC manufacturers.
They get recommendations from the tech support person who fixes their computer, the salesperson at Best Buy, or a family member who is "good with computers."
Many people will google "best antivirus" and click on the first few links, which are usually major tech publications.The testing labs themselves rarely, if ever, market directly to the public. They are industry auditors, and their primary audience consists of security vendors, enterprise IT departments, and technology journalists.
The average person doesn't need to read the raw lab reports because tech journalists and major review sites do it for them.
When publications like PCMag, CNET, or Tom's Guide publish their annual "Best Antivirus Software" articles, their recommendations are heavily informed by the data from these independent labs. They act as a bridge, translating the complex test data into the easy-to-read "Top 10" lists that consumers use to make decisions.
So, while a user may not know what AV-Comparatives is, their choice to buy a product with a "PCMag Editor's Choice" award is often an indirect endorsement of that product's stellar performance in lab testing.
A final, critical point is that no single security product, no matter how effective, is a silver bullet. The best security posture doesn't come from finding one perfect tool, it comes from creating multiple layers of defense. This fundamental concept is known as Defense in Depth.
Think of it like securing your home. You don't just lock the front door and assume you're completely safe.
True security involves multiple, overlapping layers
You have a gate at the edge of your property (
your Firewall), keeping unsolicited traffic off your lawn entirely.
You have reinforced doors and strong window locks (
your Software Updates), patching the structural weaknesses of your home.
You have a guard dog inside the house (
your Endpoint Security/Antivirus), ready to deal with any intruder who gets past the outer defenses.
You have unique keys for every room (
your Passwords), preventing access to everything if one key is stolen.
You need the key and a unique alarm code (
your Multi-Factor Authentication), making a stolen key useless on its own.
You are cautious and look through the peephole before opening the door (
your User Vigilance against phishing).
You have a fireproof, theft-proof safe for your irreplaceable items (
your Reliable Backups), ensuring that even in a catastrophe, your most valuable assets are safe.
Relying only on an antivirus is like locking your front door but leaving all the windows wide open. True digital security comes from building a complete system where each layer supports the others.
