Hello jla930,
Can you provide some source for this comparison other than an image? Are they even talking about Mac software?
There are just so many aspects to this kind of software that a simple chart like that is 99.6% useless. Here are a few questions I have right off the top of my head:
1) Is this Mac or Windows software?
2) Are these tests checking for Mac or Windows malware?
3) Are these tests checking for Mac malware only? Or do they include adware too?
4) Speaking of Mac malware, do they include the anti-malware software that comes with macOS itself? Did they have to disable Gatekeeper and XProtect just to run these tests?
5) Just what is an "AV-Comparative" vs. "AV-Test Institute"?
6) What is the nature of these "certifications"?
7) What is the impact in terms of stability and performance? Is the cure worse than the disease?
8) What is the impact in terms of security? It was only yesterday that Prirform, the company that owns the popular Mac antivirus software Avast, disclosed that they themselves had been hacked and 2 million Windows users of its CCleaner software had installed malware. Any legitimate security software must run with super-user privileges. If the software isn't perfect, and becomes popular, it can be a tool for exploitation. We are all familiar with how that works with Adobe Flash. Even Apple's own Back to My Mac feature has become a tool for ransomware.
9) Speaking of legitimacy, why didn't they test the many dozens of security tools on the Mac App Store? Because they run in the Mac App Store sandbox, these programs can't possibly detect and remove all malware. Yet they sell like hotcakes.
10) And to round out my list with an even 10, what about government restrictions. Apparently the US senate just voted to ban Kaspersky from government networks. I realize there are lots of politics involved with that. But there are practical aspects as well. This software is banned from some networks and those just happen to be the networks that everyone wants to sell to. If you ever want to do business with the US government, you are going to have to check such things.
Most importantly, what does it mean that MalwareBytes was disqualified because it only looked for "active malware"? What is the value of software that can find 100% of "inactive malware"? I think that might be a key criteria here. These tools are focused on detecting only the kind of malware that is "inactive" and, therefore, harmless. It stands to reason that harmless Windows malware would be a key component of any test of "inactive" malware on the Mac platform.
I'm not necessarily trying to promote MalwareBytes here. I'm just pointing out how difficult the whole question is. MalwareBytes itself has recently had problems with #7 above and is questionable with #4. Otherwise, it fares pretty well on my alternate evaluation. I, and many other people here on Apple Support Communities, have high confidence in MalwareBytes for dealing with the active security threats that Mac users face on a daily basis.
