Jump to content
Lusitano

Did some basic testing and the SAS wins

Recommended Posts

Well, I decided to perform a basic spyware test with SAS vs MBAM, in order to check which one performs better. I created a virtual machine with Windows XP SP3 and started surfing using only Internet Explorer and clicking on every ad and popup, installing bars, casino software, every suspicious anti-virus software and system optimizers. I was hopping that VM was full of spyware, malware and ad-aware. And it really was :D

Then I did a full system scan with latest free SuperAntiSpyware version. It took about 8 minutes for a full system scan and detected 847 items. Then I performed a full system scan with Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and it took 22 minutes and detected 1027 items. It's easy to be fooled by this results, any inexperienced user would think immediately that MBAM was the winner. But that was far from being true.

Cleaned all items detected by MBAM (had to reboot VM to clean running processes), and performed another full system scan with MBAM. This time, no detected items. But, scanning with SAS, shows an unexpected result. It detected 453 items, and those were not cookies (ok, 44 of them were). This cleary shows that giving more detected items it's not always better. Maybe MBAM has a deceiving way of counting detected items. I'm not saying at all that MBAM is an hoax, just to show that more is not always better.

Conclusion: SuperAntiSpyware performed faster and better. My test was not meant to be professional, but it's a good sample of what an every day user can expect from a anti-spyware.

Congratulations to the SAS team.

Just my 2 cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tested MBAM against SAS as well and have found similar results.

MBAM lists each file as a separate infection, making itself appear to find much more than it actually is. I've also found MBAM really likes to list benign traces in which the actual threat was already removed.

With that being said, MBAM is my second choice in a malware scanner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about posting the logs from both MBAM and SAS?

FWIW a similar test was performed here and MBAM detected more than SAS. The end result is that you can use both on-demand and come out ahead. I support both companies and have purchased several copies of each program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one product was able to detect every threat then there would be no debate! Clearly, both of these products are going to have their supporters and the testing results are going to differ. I believe that both of them compliment the other and benefit the user in detecting what the other may have missed, which for me is the most important thing. The bottom line is that you can't go wrong with a layer of quality security products that are backed by individuals that care about customer support!

ds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW a similar test was performed here and MBAM detected more than SAS

If you read my post, you will see that MBAM seems to detect more than SAS, but actually it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To further elaborate on my previous post:

I've been repairing computers for thirteen years.

Layered protection is best as noted by other posters. However, such a position denies that which is even more important: Knowledge of the Trojan Horse...WinAntiVirus, RegistryCleaner, MyWebSearch, etc.

MB comparison to SAS?

You can't do so, as SAS is an advanced league all of its own (on many levels).

BUT...MB is an excellent second choice. In fact, it's included in my shop's disinfection procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both products are excellent and as said by others - they compliment each other.

I've done Corporate Security for very large networks of thousands of systems and in the past before I came across SAS and MB there just was not a single product on the market - bar none, that was able to 100% remove everything on it's own. You had to manually intervene to cleanup an infected system. Now with using these products, most of the time almost any Malware can be fully removed. On any given day one product will detect or remove more than the other but in the end does it really matter all that much? You want your system cleaned and such figures of how many really doesn't matter that much. Many instances of Malware can be easily cleaned on it's own by either product but there are some out there that are not easily cleaned or detected by either program. Just having the technology to see everything with custom code is not enough - you have to see or have seen the malware at one time in order to detect it. Often many are just modifications and the core fingerprint for detection is still there, but for some they are new and until found they don't have a known fingerprint for detection or removal. These Companies spend countless hours researching, designing, building, and supporting users so that their products do work well.

If one product works well for you that's great. If not, the more sensible solution is a layered approach for prevention, detection, and removal.

In my opinion arguing about which product detects or removes more is a bit of useless quibble. They're both good products that have made the life of home users and Corporate users a lot easier than it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×