About ShieldLog

We started as three people who were frustrated by the state of antivirus reviewing online. We're still three people, still frustrated, but now we have a place to do it properly.

Why This Exists

In 2022, one of our founders spent two weeks trying to find a trustworthy answer to the question "which antivirus should I install on my parents' computer?" Every review site he found had the same top-three picks, the same vague praise for each, and the same "get 60% off today!" links. He noticed the sites were either owned by the companies they reviewed, or were earning substantial affiliate revenue from the products they ranked first.

He built ShieldLog as the answer he wished had existed. The goal was simple: do the testing properly, write honestly about what we found, and find a way to fund it that doesn't create a conflict of interest with our editorial conclusions.

How We Test

Every product reviewed on ShieldLog is installed on the same hardware — a mid-range Windows 11 laptop chosen specifically because it represents the kind of machine most of our readers are likely using. We run each product for a minimum of three months, often six. We test detection using a controlled set of known malware samples and simulated threats. We benchmark performance using PCMark 10 and measure boot times. We use the product as a normal user would — browser, email, downloads from real-world sources — rather than in a sanitised lab environment.

We also read every independent lab report from AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, and SE Labs for the products we cover and cross-reference their findings with ours. When there's a meaningful discrepancy, we try to understand why before publishing.

How We're Funded

ShieldLog doesn't run affiliate links. We don't take money from antivirus companies for coverage. We don't have sponsored articles or "partnered content." We fund the site through a small number of direct reader supporters who pay for access to our longer comparison reports. Everything on the free site — all the reviews, guides, and comparisons — is funded by those supporters and stays free for everyone else.

If that model resonates with you, you can support us directly. If it doesn't, that's fine — the content stays free regardless.

Who We Are

J

James Whitfield

Lead Reviewer

Former IT systems administrator with 14 years of experience in network security. Has tested security products since before most readers owned a smartphone. Strongly held opinions about false positive rates.

S

Sarah Chen

Guides & Analysis

Technology writer with a background in consumer privacy advocacy. Writes our guides, handles mobile platform testing, and is the reason our articles don't assume you know what a TCP packet is.

M

Marcus Bell

Testing & Operations

Runs the test lab, maintains the benchmark methodology, and makes sure our numbers are actually comparable between products. Also responsible for the coffee, which is important.

Our Scoring System

Each product is scored out of 10 across five categories: detection rate and accuracy (40% of score), performance impact (20%), feature completeness and value (20%), interface and usability (10%), and long-term reliability and update cadence (10%). The weighted total produces the headline score. We explain our reasoning for each category in the full review. We don't adjust scores based on who makes the product or what they charge.

Corrections Policy

If we get something wrong, we correct it clearly and promptly. If a product updates significantly between our review date and your reading date, we either update the review or note the gap. We don't delete corrections — we note what changed and when. If you've spotted something factually incorrect, use the contact page.