WOT vs. SiteAdvisor vs. SafeWeb – PrizeFly

PrizeFly

This post is part of TechAirlines' biweekly PrizeFly series. Every other Monday, we compare key features of 2-4 similar products and crown one as the "prized flyer".

Do you use search engines? Ever wonder which sites are safe to visit? By the time you actually visit the site, it might already be too late. Web reputation and site rating services are here to help.

These products and services place icons next to search result links to indicate a site’s safety level.

Unknown Safety

A search for 'Free screensavers' brings up many results. But which ones are safe to use and which aren't?

Table of Contents

About the Contestants
Round 1 – Rating Accuracy and Update Frequency
Round 2 – Search Safety Icons
Round 3 – Website Ratings
Round 4 – Malicious Site Warnings
Bonus Round 1 – Secure Search
Bonus Round 2 – Browser Support
Results!

About the Contestants

WOTWeb of Trust (WOT for short) is a community based web reputation service by WOT Services. Its ratings are entirely calculated by a global community of millions of users. It’s the only one of our contestants that isn’t created by an antivirus company. Also unlike the others, WOT is focused on user trust of a website instead of just general security.

McAfee SiteAdvisorMcAfee SiteAdvisor is a site rating service from the antivirus company, McAfee. It’s rating are calculated using an automated web scanner that checks websites for malicious downloads, malicious external links, spam-like emails, and annoyances, like tracking cookies.

Norton Safe WebNorton SafeWeb is a site rating service from the antivirus company, Symantec. Like SiteAdvisor, its rating are also calculated using an automated web scanner checking websites for security risks. It was originally exclusively part of Norton Internet Security and Norton 360, but they recently released a free Lite version that works regardless of whether or not the security suite is installed. The Lite version seems to have the same features as the version included with the suites.

Round 1 – Rating Accuracy and Update Frequency

If the service has a lot of inaccuracies with ratings, then it can be considered useless and even misleading. Obviously, none of our contestants can be perfect as sites are always changing, but the ratings should be regularly updated.

Rating accuracy and update frequency are combined into the same round because one usually influences the other.

WOT

While many may think that ratings completely calculated by the community may have many inaccuracies but the WOT Team developed very advanced algorithms. Not all users have an equal say. New users have very little influence on the ratings. More experienced users with more comments (and people agreeing with their comment) and ratings have a significantly greater influence on the ratings.

WOT Forum

The WOT Forum allows anyone to request the community to rate their website and a full rating could be live within 30 minutes

In addition, when a site changes, anyone can post a thread on the forums asking for others to review it and the rating can quickly be reviewed and changed by the large community. This allows ratings to be accurately updated very quickly.

SiteAdvisor

For McAfee SiteAdvisor, updates to it seem to be happening very slowly. Verified website owners are allowed to post a special comment on their site scorecard, however, this doesn’t submit a rating dispute request to McAfee. To dispute ratings, webmasters would have to send them an email. According to their Webmaster McAfee UnratedFAQ, rating disputes via email can take several business days.

Each community user has a certain reputation level (out of 9) based on votes they get for helpful comments.

So far I’ve never noticed any site have their ratings change to something else besides unrated. Several sites were marked as red, but is currently gray (unrated). Many sites, including TechAirlines, used to have green, but now are gray.

SafeWeb

While SafeWeb is also rated by an automated scanner, ratings seem to be updated a lot faster than SiteAdvisor. Their FAQ states their the frequency of updates is based on the amount of traffic a site gets.

Norton Community RatingThey are also quite fast at responding to rating disputes. I’ve seen a medium traffic site request a re-review and this was completed within 24 hours.

SafeWeb was very inaccurate when it was first launched, but its slowly getting better, though I still find quite a number of mistakes.

They also offer a community rating, which is a rating (out of 5.0) generated by community ratings. Unlike WOT, everyone has equal say here. The community rating is entirely separate from the Norton rating.

Round 1 Results

WOT takes this round for having the fastest updates backed up for a large community, followed by Norton and SiteAdvisor.

WOT: 5
SiteAdvisor: 3
SafeWeb: 3

Round 2 – Search Safety Icons

What sites does each service show safety icons for?

WOT

WOT Hover ScorecardWOT shows safety icons in five different colors, dark green, light green, yellow, orange, and red in four different categories, Trustworthiness, Vendor Reliability, Privacy, and Child Safety. By default, these icons show on all external links on 24 different sites, including popular search engines (Google, Bing, Yahoo!, Ask, AOL, etc…), email (Gmail, Yahoo! Mail, and Hotmail), as well as various other sites, like Digg and Wikipedia.

WOT also offers a custom API that allows any webmaster to place Javascript rating icons next to external links on their website. This widget is also used on the WOT website.

In addition, the WOT scorecards also display a rating trust level based on the number of users who rated it. If many users rated a site a certain level, then a higher number of people would be displayed (out of 5).

McAfee Site ScorecardSiteAdvisor

McAfee has 3 colors and icons, green, yellow, and red. Green indicates a safe site, yellow indicates a potentially dangerous one, and red indicates a dangerous site.

The hovercard displays the rating as well as the number of red downloads, linked site rating, email, as well as annoyances.

Strangely, it does not display any yellow downloads.

If a site holds a McAfee Secure seal, the seal will also show on the search results and on the hover card.

The free version supports search icons on Google, Bing, Yahoo!, AOL, Ask.com, and 15 other search engines.

Norton SafeWebSafeWeb

Like SiteAdvisor, SafeWeb has the same 3 colors. In addition, safe e-commerce sites also hold an extra shopping cart icon, although this seems to be pending removal soon.

SafeWeb’s hover card shows the number of Computer Threats, Identity Threats, and Annoyances. In addition, if the site is e-Commerce, additional icons are shown.

It supports search icons on Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Ask.com.

Round 2 Results

SiteAdvisor and SafeWeb are very similar here in the way they show why a site received the rating they did. WOT takes this round for having the a simple info card as well as ratings in 5 colors in 4 categories. In addition, it supports the most diverse range of sites. SiteAdvisor ties with WOT for providing a very informative scorecard, although not supporting as many sites.

WOT: 5 (10 total)
SiteAdvisor: 5 (8 total)
SafeWeb: 3 (6 total)

Round 3 – Website Ratings

WOT Rating CardWhen you’re browsing websites, you want to know if they’re safe or not even if you don’t go through a search engine. How efficient are our contestants at fetching ratings on the fly? How informative is the rating card?

WOT

WOT is the only one solely based on community ratings. The rating card shows in the browser toolbar and allows users to rate the site. It also has a announcement panel at the bottom, a link to a user’s profile, as well as a link to the site scorecard.

Except for the Safari version, the toolbar icon’s color matches the site’s overall rating, although this can be customized in Settings.

SiteAdvisor

SiteAdvisor displays as a colored bar in Internet Explorer’s toolbar or Firefox’s status bar. Next to it is the optional Secure Search (refer to Bonus Round 1).

Hover over the bar for a few seconds reveals the the same scorecard shown in search results.

McAfee Secure

McAfee Rating Card with McAfee Secure. This is the rating card for mcafee.com.

Clicking on the bar opens the site rating page. Unfortunately, this opens in a new window rather than a new tab and I found this to be extremely irritating.

The bar is larger than the default Firefox status bar, which causes a loss of some vertical screen estate.

SafeWeb

Norton SafeWeb creates a new toolbar with the security rating button as well as Norton Safe Search (refer to Bonus Round 1 below).

Clicking on the SafeWeb button shows the same rating card as search results.

Norton Site Safety

Norton Site Safety

Round 3 Results

WOT takes this round for providing the most useful and interactive rating card. Norton and McAfee tie at second.

WOT: 5 (15 total)
SiteAdvisor: 3.5 (11.5 total)
SafeWeb: 3.5 (9.5 total)

Round 4 – Malicious Site Warnings

WOT Warning

WOT Warning Screen

WOT is on a perfect streak. The final round that determines it all is warnings of visiting a dangerous site. If you made a typo when typing a domain, there’s a chance that someone created a malicious typo-squat site. How well do our contestants prevent users from visiting malicious sites and interacting with them?

WOT

WOT provides two options, warning or blocking. In addition, users can set the rating level (very poor, poor, or unsatisfactory) that they want WOT to start warning them about.

Warning means that the site would still load and WOT fetches ratings asynchronously. If the rating is dangerous, it darkens the screen and gives a warning.

Blocking means that before the site can even load, WOT will fetch the ratings. If its dangerous, WOT will prevent the site from loading all together. This can be useful as parental control as well as to prevent malicious drive-by-downloads. This feature is only available for Firefox and Internet Explorer and because it needs to fetch ratings first, it causes a slight delay in browsing.

WOT Blocked

WOT blocked access to this site.

SiteAdvisor

When a site is dangerous, the rating card automatically popups without any user interaction. This serves as the warning.

SafeWeb

SafeWeb loads ratings while the page is loading. However, if the site is marked as red, Norton will show a blocked page with an option to continue anyway. Unlike WOT, the site still loads first anyway).

Norton Blocked

Norton Blocked Site

Round 4 Results

WOT takes this round for having the best set of options as well as an effective blocking method. Norton comes in second for having a blocking method, but the site still loads first. SiteAdvisor trails third for having almost no warning.

WOT: 5 (20 total)
SiteAdvisor: 1.5 (13 total)
SafeWeb: 3.5 (14 total)

And our winner is… no wait… there’s more! You know what time it is… Bonus Points!

Bonus Round 1 – Secure Search

Wouldn’t it be great to use a search engine that would automatically filter out malicious search results? All three of our contestants feature their own version of secure search.

WOT

WOT SafeSearch is powered by Surfcanyon. Rating icons show here even if you don’t have the add-on installed. There’s options to filter out potentially unwanted results.

There is no search bar included with the add-on, so its not considered a feature.

WOT: No Bonus Points

SiteAdvisor

SiteAdvisor places a large Secure Search bar next to the rating button. This is powered by Yahoo! Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anything special about this. It still loads a regular Yahoo! search results page that only shows ratings if the add-on is installed.

This feature seems absolutely useless and a waste of space, so McAfee is actually losing points this round. Luckily, it can be disabled.

SiteAdvisor: -2 bonus points (11 total)

SafeWeb

Norton SafeSearch

Norton SafeSearch Options

SafeWeb provides a Norton Safe Search bar powered by Ask.com. This is a special version of Ask.com Search that shows ratings even if SafeWeb is not installed. Normally, SafeWeb doesn’t even support Ask.com.

There are options to filter out dangerous results as well as only show Safe Shopping sites.

This could be a potentially useful feature, but of course, the search bar can be hidden.

SafeWeb: +2 bonus points (16 total)

The only contestant that benefited from this round was SafeWeb.

Bonus Round 2 – Browser Support

Which browsers does each contestant support?

WOT has an official add-on for Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari. There is also a special bookmarklet for other browsers that displays a site’s ratings when clicking on.

SiteAdvisor and SafeWeb both only support Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox at this time.

WOT: +2 bonus points (22 total)

Results!

How many total points did each contestant score?

WOT:
22
SiteAdvisor:
11
SafeWeb:
16
And our winner is…
WOT Logo

Congratulations to Web of Trust!

Now let’s hear your thoughts. What’s your favorite of our three contestants? Vote in the poll below and leave your thoughts in the comments.

This concludes this week’s edition of PrizeFly Friday. Be sure to join us next week for another exciting comparison!

By
Brian is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of TechAirlines. He is also a developer and manages most of the site’s operations. He enjoys web development in his free time and is currently trying to learn Python. He is currently a high school senior in New York City.

  • Kevin

    I like WOT but I’m not so sure about its accuracy. How can a community based system be reliable?

    What if some random owner of a malicious site decides to rate their new site good? The rating is gray, but then after he/she rates it, would it turn green and cause the rating to be incorrect?

    As a customer of Norton IS, I’m using Safeweb right now.

    • http://www.techairlines.com Brian Yang

      Hey Kevin,

      That is actually a very common misconception. WOT may be community based, but they seem to have developed an advanced algorithm with individual user trust. In order to actually have an impact on a site’s ratings, the system must trust you. A new user will have almost no impact on a site’s rating, however a two-year old member with thousands of ratings and comments (and agrees to the comments) will have a significantly impact.

      Manipulation of the system is actually really difficult.

      If you spot an incorrectly rated site, you can post a thread in the forums.

      Thanks for visiting,
      Brian

      • Vrij

        I believe you are wrong, in fact I know so because I did an expose on their system and there is no such algorithm besides the users who have many accounts who use bots to rate many sites a day without care if they are good or bad. The motivation for users is to rate as many sites as they can in order to win stat points. People with high stats, their rating carries the power of ten people rating.
        If you pay them the money they ask for it helps boost your ratings. This is no more than a scam created to bleed site owners of their money and there is no truth behind what they promise. They are not antivirus they do not protect your computer from infection. It is nothing more than a rating site capable of manipulating the ratings however convenient. Their income comes from them selling Trust shields to site owners.

        They do not enforce their own TOS and trying to get help by posting in the forums is a waste of time. There are only 10 active members at the most and are totally misinformed. They offer no support and provide no contact information.
        This is a huge scam worthless and untrustworthy. there is plenty of proof out there, just google “Web of Trust is a scam”

    • Linda

      You’re right Kevin! I have seen many, many sites that are rated an “F” simply because of its content–IOW, the person rating it does not agree with the site’s message/stance on an issue, so rates is poorly. I used to use WOT, but since WOT doesn’t care about these types of psuedo ratings, I too am using Safeweb

  • http://www.techied.net/ Matt

    Mywot will always come out on top, its new, active, and lets the community decide on what is right and what is not.

  • Robert Frittmann

    This was a useful comparison, thanks. I have been using WOT for a few years now, and was searching for a way to automatically link NoScript with WOT when I came across your post. I hope to find out how to automatically view a WOT scorecard from a NoScript authorization request. Any ideas?

    • http://www.techairlines.com Brian Yang

      Hi Robert,

      Hmm linking NoScript and WOT would be an excellent idea. Sorry, but unfortunately, I don’t know of a way to do this as they’re two separate addons.

      Maybe someone could develop an add-on that could create a second context menu that has a link to View the WOT Scorecard of a certain domain.

      For now, I guess you would just have to look each site up manually, or try this: http://www.mywot.com/wiki/WOT_Scorecard_Search_Plugin

      I’ll send you an update if I ever find a way to automatically view a WOT scorecard from NoScript.

      Thanks for visiting and enjoy your day,
      Brian

  • Doug Lang

    I use WOT and the Netcraft toolbar on Firefox and IE, two website ratings apps are better than just one, IMO. I also do not directly click on links within any webpage, preferring to C&P the link into the browser searchbox (not the addressbar). I also use a BSD or Linux Live CD to browse the internet when I am in an “adventurous” mood to browse websites that may or may not be safe.

    That way, the OS runs only in physical memory, and disappears when I logout,close, and shutdown the OS, and nothing damaging can be installed into the OSes that I have installed in my computers’ hard drives and partitions. I also NEVER install any software into the same partition that my Windows OS is located on. Makes it easier to defrag each partition, as well as uninstall the software.

  • Jenna

    Sit Advisor and Safe Web are rated by professionals. WOT is a heap of nothing. I have seen numerous web sites rated solely because people were told to vote that way by WOT snobs. It is a witch hunt browser. It is a dictator-based search, and rated like such. I would never trust WOT for anything. Too bad so many people are controlled by the upper people who run this web site.

    • http://flatpackassemblers.co.uk Edwin Cooke

      I am not sure a system rated by professionals can be seen to be any better than one rated by volunteers. Whilst each volunteer will always have an individual agenda, professionals will always have a commercial agenda and criteria to work to and whatever this is, it will influence the outcome.

      A classic analogy is the Rupert Murdoch press, it would be foolish to suggest his coverage is entirely impartial and has no political agenda?

      I suppose the advantage of WOT is that the people who do comment probably have widely different views and therefore whilst you might get skewed results you are more likely to get a balanced outcome. However whilst you might be correct that pivotal individuals influence results, isn’t that what the policy of a commercial organisation does by definition?

      • http://www.creastery.com Creastery

        Hello Edwin,
        Indeed, I agree that a system rated by volunteers can be better than that of a system rated by professionals.

        In this world, there are more and more sites registered globally. Can a team of professionals be able to rate all of them soon? Of course not. However, can a global team of volunteers be able to rate all of them soon? Maybe not, but at least you can cover most of them.

        Many people I know of on WOT are trying to help the community and themselves to promote a safer browsing experience without an agenda.

  • Matt

    What I like most about WoT is it’s the only major site rating services that has a Firefox add-on that only installs in Firefox where as AVG LinkScanner, McAfee Site Advisor, PC Tools Browser Defender, Symantec Safe Web Lite and AVAST WebRep all install on the computer itself.

    I hate Symantec Safe Web Lite most because there is no way to hide the toolbar and just use the icon. A lot of people have complained about the toolbar and apparently Symantec doesn’t care because they seem to refuse to give users the choice between the search bar and the icon like McAfee Site Advisor does. They probably make money off the search engine thus they would rather have no one use Safe Web Lite than give users the choice between the icon and toolbar.

    • http://www.techairlines.com Brian Yang

      That’s one of the reasons why I like WOT. It’s just a small button on your toolbar and can be rearranged any way you want.

  • http://test.com Ethelyn Hastie

    Awesome post.

  • Jimmy

    what about the rating of AVG linkscanner??
    linkscanner.avg.com

    • http://www.techairlines.com Brian Yang

      Linkscanner wasn’t included in this because it works differently than the other three. Linkscanner doesn’t retrieve ratings from a database, but instead scans links in real time.

  • http://flatpackassemblers.co.uk Edwin Cooke

    What I would like to know (and I know this is rather shallow), does a good WOT rating have any impact on your SERP ?

    • http://www.creastery.com Creastery

      Hello Edwin,

      Having a good WOT rating does not bring any negative impact on the Search Engine Results Page (SERP). On the other hand, having a good WOT rating does not necessarily represents a positive impact on the SERP.

      With a good WOT rating, people are more likely to browse your site and even recommend then, thus bringing in more visitors. However, if a site has a poor WOT rating, most people are likely to shun the site.

  • Data Recovery

    Mcafee and Norton are commercial products and have a proper and organized channel to deal with false-positives.

    when you contact myWOT for any flase positive, they respond in the manner as it is something “uncontrolled”.

    the ratings of MCAFEE and NORTON are from experts and ratings from myWOT are actually from public. it is somthing like carpenter and cobbler have the same vote value as an ntimalware specialist.

    i really deny this thing.

  • http://www.barcodes.co.nz DA

    I believe in the wisdom of crowds – but if the system can be manipulated, there is a problem. You can purchase ratings for WOT at fiverr.com – $5 for 1-2 ratings. Surely this throws the validity of the system into question.

    • http://www.techairlines.com Brian Yang

      WOT’s system develops a trust-level for each user. If a user doesn’t have a high trust-level, he/she will have very very little influence on a site’s ratings.

      Also, paying for get a good WOT rating is just pathetic. Why not just make a good and honest site and ask for a good rating for free on the forums?

  • GL

    WOT is completely ridiculous. I just looked through their ratings for a number of my sites, and several of them were showing red due to ONE rating set BEFORE I developed that particular site, when it just showed the default page from the registrar.
    How can people set a “no-trust” rating when there is no site yet, and why does their system not require a minimum number of ratings before making a decision?
    This way it’s not only useless, but harmful.

    • http://www.techairlines.com/ Brian Yang

      There isn’t a set “minimum” number of ratings required to change a site’s overall rating. It depends on each individual user’s trust level. How can you tell that the site only has one rating?

      Also, the site that used the domain name before you probably was hosting something that people found untrustworthy. You can easily request a re-review in the WOT forums. Users there are very willing to review your site.

      See: http://www.mywot.com/wiki/Rating_reliability

      • GL

        The only rating that showed had a comment, which said exactly that. “(domain).com used to be… (highly reputable site) .. back in 2001 or so. Now it’s a placeholder site with no credentials.
        I’ve given this a negative trustworthiness rating.”
        It was undeveloped for over 10 years before I created the current site. How someone can give a negative trustworthiness rating for an undeveloped site, which didn’t (like some parking pages) even try to give the impression to be anything else, is beyond me.