I as well see opposite of what the tests show, without an explanation.
I find tests like these generally don't reflect real-world usage at all. Certainly they have some academic value, and they can be useful in helping to choose an anti-virus solution, but I would never base my choice purely on any of these results.
These tests essentially bombard the anti-virus software with hundreds of
known malware files and generate scores based on detection rates, ranking the anti-virus software more by
'how much' got through than
'what' got through. In the real world, the nature of the threat is far more important. I think if you were to compare detection results of each of these anti-virus solutions against well-known, serious/malicious threats, they would all rank the same; there's just no reason to leave a serious known threat out of the virus definitions.
However, if we're talking about the less destructive 'nuisance' infections, especially those that border or cross into the PUP category, it's a very different story, since there's differing views on whether some of this stuff is malicious and even whether it's the responsibility of the anti-virus software to police it.
Then there's the presently unknown malware. If you don't know it exists, how are you going to find it to test detection rates? Sure you can probably find some zero-day stuff and beat some of the anti-virus vendors in the race to update their virus definition files, but then that would reflect more on how frequently updates are released by each vendor than their software's detection rates.
As for Microsoft Security Essentials, well, the clue is in the name really. It focuses on providing basic protection. That is, protection that focuses on preventing known, serious malware infections.
I have to admit, like a lot of people here I jumped ship when MSE began doing poorly in the ratings and I started using numerous alternatives instead. For the very few residential customers I have, I would probably still recommend something other than MSE, especially for those who like to 'live on the edge' a little with their browsing and email habits. But, for business use, MSE still gives me the least hassle.
I've tried various other anti-virus solutions but they're either too intrusive (notification-wise), too resource intensive or they don't play well with some of the more unusual LOB software. In a business environment, if you've got everything properly locked down with good security practices, I would argue that MSE (or its lesser-known twin, 'Security Center Endpoint Protection') will provide just as much protection against serious infection as most other solutions. In fact, I use MSE/SCEP on many of my business customer's machines (probably over 100 in total) and, in the the last 5 years or more, I can't recall a single infection, let alone a serious one. With good security practices/policies, in my experience, infections will be few, and probably no more than with any other solution.
There are of course other reasons to push alternatives to MSE, and I know for many people on here one reason is the additional revenue some of the alternatives can provide. While I've considered this route a number of times, my experiences with most third party anti-virus solutions, and the problems they inevitably seem to cause with some LOB software, has deterred me from using them. They create more hassle than the malware to be honest. And, if a user does manage to somehow infect their computer, they generally blame themselves (and of course I'm the hero when I come to the rescue). On the other hand, if the anti-virus software I install causes LOB software issues, I'm the one to blame. The few quid profit I might make per AV subscription just isn't worth the hassle for me.
I use MSE with MBAM as a weekly sweep. Then again - it's not like I'm a normal user
Same here.
Although it's probably more like monthly for me, unless I have reason to believe there's something on there (which is rare) .... the scan results invariably show a clean system.
