Real-World Protection Test Enterprise March-April 2025 – Testresult

This report is an excerpt of the Business Security Test March-April 2025 – Factsheet. For more details, please click here.

Introduction

This fact sheet gives a brief overview of the results of the Business Real-World Protection Test run in March and April 2025. The overall business product reports (each covering four months) will be released in July and December. For more information about this Real-World Protection Test, please read the details available at https://www.av-comparatives.org. The results are based on a test set consisting of 220 test cases (such as malicious URLs), tested from the beginning of March till the end of April.

Tested Products

• Avast Ultimate Business Security
  25.1 | 25.2
• Bitdefender GravityZone Business Security Premium
  7.9 | 7.9
• Cisco Secure Endpoint Essentials
  8.4 | 8.4
• CrowdStrike Falcon Pro
  7.22 | 7.23
• Elastic Security
  8.17 | 8.17
• ESET PROTECT Entry with ESET PROTECT Cloud
  12.0 | 12.0
• G Data Endpoint Protection Business
  15.8 | 15.8
• K7 On-Premises Enterprise Security Advanced
  14.2 | 14.2
• Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business – Select, with KSC
  12.7 | 12.8
• ManageEngine Endpoint Central with Malware Protection
  11.3 | 11.4
• Microsoft Defender Antivirus with Microsoft Endpoint Manager
  4.18 | 4.18
• NetSecurity ThreatResponder
  3.6 | 3.6
• Rapid7 InsightIDR
  4.0 | 4.0
• SenseOn Platform with EPP
  6.11 | 6.11
• Sophos Intercept X Advanced
  2024.3 | 2024.3
• Trellix Endpoint Security (ENS)
  10.7 | 10.7
• VIPRE Endpoint Detection & Response
  13.2 | 13.2

Test Results

	Blocked	User dependent	Compromised	PROTECTION RATE [Blocked % + (User dependent %)/2]*	False Alarms
Elastic	220	–	–	100%	10
Trellix	220	–	–	100%	11
Bitdefender, VIPRE	219	–	1	99.5%	1
Microsoft	219	–	1	99.5%	2
Avast	219	–	1	99.5%	10
G Data, Kaspersky	218	–	2	99.1%	1
ESET	218	–	2	99.1%	2
Sophos	218	–	2	99.1%	6
CrowdStrike	215	–	5	98.2%	10
NetSecurity	214	–	6	97.3%	6
K7	214	–	6	97.3%	9
ManageEngine	213	–	7	96.8%	6
Cisco	212	–	8	96.4%	0
Rapid7	210	–	10	95.5%	0
SenseOn	209	–	11	95.0%	0

* User-dependent cases are given half credit. For example, if a program blocks 80% by itself, and another 20% of cases are user-dependent, we give half credit for the 20%, i.e. 10%, so it gets 90% altogether.

Malware Protection Test (March)

The Malware Protection Test assesses a security program’s ability to protect a system against infection by malicious files before, during or after execution. The methodology used for each product tested is as follows. Prior to execution, all the test samples are subjected to on-access scans (if this feature is available) by the security program (e.g. while copying the files over the network). Any samples that have not been detected by the on-access scanner are then executed on the test system, with Internet/cloud access available, to allow e.g. behavioural detection features to come into play. If a product does not prevent or reverse all the changes made by a particular malware sample within a given time period, that test case is considered to be a miss. For this test, 1,018 recent malware samples were used.

False positive (false alarm) test with common business software

A false alarm test done with common business software was also performed. All tested products had zero false alarms on common business software.

The following chart shows the results of the Business Malware Protection Test:

	Malware Protection Rate	False Alarms on common business software
Elastic, Kaspersky	100%	0
Avast	99.7%	0
Bitdefender, Cisco	99.6%	0
ESET, G Data	99.5%	0
VIPRE	99.4%	0
CrowdStrike, Microsoft	99.3%	0
Rapid7	99.1%	0
SenseOn	99.0%	0
NetSecurity	98.9%	0
Trellix	98.4%	0
Sophos	98.0%	0
K7	96.1%	0
ManageEngine	91.5%	0

 

Copyright and Disclaimer

This publication is Copyright © 2025 by AV-Comparatives ®. Any use of the results, etc. in whole or in part, is ONLY permitted after the explicit written agreement of the management board of AV-Comparatives prior to any publication. AV-Comparatives and its testers cannot be held liable for any damage or loss, which might occur as result of, or in connection with, the use of the information provided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic data, but a liability for the correctness of the test results cannot be taken by any representative of AV-Comparatives. We do not give any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a specific purpose of any of the information/content provided at any given time. No one else involved in creating, producing or delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or consequential damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related to, the use or inability to use, the services provided by the website, test documents or any related data.

For more information about AV-Comparatives and the testing methodologies, please visit our website.

AV-Comparatives
(May 2025)