You need to look through several months if not years to observe a pattern. Consistency is what matters.
Years? I disagree. It suggests a product considered the best years ago with Vista or XP must still be top rated today with Windows 10. Just not true. It also suggests the threats from years ago are the same, or represent the same challenges as those threats out in the wild today. Again, not true. I'll go along with checking the last few months to ensure a top or bottom rating is not a "one-off" rating. But not years.
And if you are going to put all your faith in those synthetic laboratory tests (and I don't), make sure you look at the results for your OS. Suggesting, for example, Windows Defender with Windows 10 must be bad because Microsoft Security Essentials with W7 didn't score well is misrepresenting the facts.
I do this for a living, repairing computers, I have spent yrs cleaning PC's with people been told that Windows Defender is all you need, its a load of BS,
And anyone who says [
fill in the blank] is "all you need" is a BSer is feeding others a load of BS. Regardless your solution of choice, users should always use a secondary scanner to verify nothing sneaked on by. Why? Because even the best security is easily thwarted if the user opens the door and lets the badguy in. That exactly why "socially engineered" methods of malware distribution works so effectively. Users must keep their systems current and
not be "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments, and links.
Your comments about WD are, IMO, tunnel visioned. For many years in my shop, malware removal was the biggest service we provided. It was great for business! But it sure wasn't
only or even mostly MSE/WD users who were infected. No solution was immune! For many years infected Windows 7 computers using Norton and McAfee dominated. Why? Because those two products were commonly pre-installed on factory made computers bought by consumers. Next was probably AVG because that was widely suggested, but we saw and still see systems
supposedly fully protected by Kaspersky, ESET, BitDefender, Avira, Trend Micro and [
fill in the blank] too.
And the fact of the matter is, the most common element in these systems was "outdated" and modified Windows defaults! That is, users dinking with Windows defaults thinking they knew better than Microsoft. And of the systems that ran slow, most were simply full of clutter, 1000s and 1000s of cookies, extra toolbars, auto-updaters for programs they rarely used, etc. Hard drives nearly full and severely fragmented (again, because users dinked with settings). Tiny or no page files because they were told by some wannabe memory management "expert"
claiming no PF was needed when lots of RAM was installed.
Since W8.x came out, infected systems coming into my shop have decreased dramatically such that my core business (IT consulting and custom computers) is now the biggest service segment again.
Why? Because Windows 8.x and Windows 10 keep themselves updated - if the users don't dink with the settings. Not because they switched away from WD.
As las suggests, the
user is ALWAYS the weakest link in security. Again, they must keep Windows current and not be "click-happy". Also important is to always, as in
EVERY SINGLE TIME, select the "custom" install option when installing 3rd party applications to ensure you have to the option to "opt-out" of unwanted toolbars, search engines, updaters and adware.
Frankly, IMO, these constant disparagings of one solution or another ad nauseam is just silly. Virtually will protect the computer if the user would only compute
defensively. Just like a Ford or Chevy pickup truck will serve those owners well, Camry vs Accord, Intel vs AMD, or NVIDIA vs AMD will provide good service. Not having the top rated (for that month) product does NOT mean your product of choice will fail to do its job.
