Right off the bat I'd like to say that I disagre with the methodology of this test even though Norton came in 2nd (which is a pretty good place). It is your traditional on-demand retrospective test, which is to say, dump a bunch of malware in a directory and run the on-demand scanner against it. This type of test does not test your URL blocking capabilities (called SafeWeb in Norton), your vulnerability or drive-by download protection (called IPS and Browser Protection) in Norton, and your behavioral capabilities (called SONAR2 in Norton). Also reputation as well (called Quorum in Norton). Ok, so they tested 1 out of 10 features thereby relegating this test to the ever increasing dump heap of shitty tests. But what really irked me about this test was when PC World commented on G-Data's win and I quote "GData.. but using it means having to make more decisions than you do with other apps."
Hello! PC World are you forgetting you are a home user magazine. Home users dont want to make decisions ! They dont know how to make decisions. How in the world did you give GData the crown if they have a product that keeps forcing the user to make a decisions.
Is it just me or are these magazine tests getting worse by the year even though they were useless to begin with.
You can read all about the test here