4 ms·

µBlock Origin is conveniently missing from the benchmark table... we know you benchmarked it... so what's the outcome? Faster or slower? :)

Jerry2 11y ago
It's faster than any traditional ad blocking method due to the way iOS9 "Content Blocking" has been implemented. Give this a read: http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/ http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/
- Redoubts 11y ago
  > It's faster than any traditional ad blocking So is uBlock
  - Jerry2 11y ago
    uBlock is a traditional ad blocker. you can see how traditional ad blockers compare: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested-for-best-performance/view-all/ https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested...
    - XzetaU8 11y ago
      uBlock Origin is NOT an ad-blocker, let alone traditional one. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode
      - Jerry2 11y ago
        It is when you compare to Content Blocking. Refer to http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/ http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/
- byoogle 11y ago
  All the benchmarks were run in Chrome (there are a few notes on methodology in-page). We didn’t benchmark uBlock [Origin], but I just ”ran” the filesize benchmark :-): * uBlock Origin: 1.41 MB * uBlock: 3.54 MB * Adblock Fast: 96.59 KB
  - chralieboy 11y ago
    Could you run the other ones as well? If you're positioning yourself as a faster alternative to ABP, it makes sense to compare yourself against other popular alternatives.
  - gorhill 11y ago
    uBlock Origin is packaged with all the filter lists which are selected by default: EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's, etc. This ensures that it will work out of the box immediately even if the respective remote servers are not responding, not an uncommon occurrence with the server hosting EasyList et al. The size of the package is not a factor to performance -- removing EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc. from the package would not make uBlock Origin faster or slower.
  - Nyr 11y ago
    No one cares about 3 megabytes of disk usage. I did a quick memory "benchmark" for you. This is loading TechCrunch in 64 bit Chrome for Mac: * uBlock Origin: 92,9 MB * Adblock Fast: 54,7 MB Considering uBlock Origin packs a lot of functionality (and lists) which your extension lacks, you don't really have much advantage (if any). Also, consuming a "lower percentage of CPU" is counterproductive. Adblockers should peak the CPU for the smallest amount of time possible, not use a little percentage of CPU time during a longer period of time as you advertise. That's just ridiculous.
    - linksbro 11y ago
      It's clear they haven't made a "better, faster" adblock, just one they can pass off as "faster" with misleading benchmarks all for the goal of not fighting on behalf of the user, but for advertising their app firm.
    - 11y ago
- gorhill 11y ago
  The article you linked too says: > In contrast, adblockers like Adblock Plus rely on javascript’s built in regular expression parser This is not accurate for uBlock Origin. A majority of network filters in EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc. do not need to be implemented as regular expressions, and for these uBlock Origin does not use a regular expression, it's simply a straightforward string comparison. Also, there are further optimizations when a filter is just a hostname (these are common too, especially in HOSTS files which can be parsed by uBlock).

Jerry2 11y ago

It's faster than any traditional ad blocking method due to the way iOS9 "Content Blocking" has been implemented. Give this a read: http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/ http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/

Redoubts 11y ago
> It's faster than any traditional ad blocking So is uBlock
- Jerry2 11y ago
  uBlock is a traditional ad blocker. you can see how traditional ad blockers compare: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested-for-best-performance/view-all/ https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested...
  - XzetaU8 11y ago
    uBlock Origin is NOT an ad-blocker, let alone traditional one. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode
    - Jerry2 11y ago
      It is when you compare to Content Blocking. Refer to http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/ http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/
byoogle 11y ago
All the benchmarks were run in Chrome (there are a few notes on methodology in-page). We didn’t benchmark uBlock [Origin], but I just ”ran” the filesize benchmark :-): * uBlock Origin: 1.41 MB * uBlock: 3.54 MB * Adblock Fast: 96.59 KB
- chralieboy 11y ago
  Could you run the other ones as well? If you're positioning yourself as a faster alternative to ABP, it makes sense to compare yourself against other popular alternatives.
- gorhill 11y ago
  uBlock Origin is packaged with all the filter lists which are selected by default: EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's, etc. This ensures that it will work out of the box immediately even if the respective remote servers are not responding, not an uncommon occurrence with the server hosting EasyList et al. The size of the package is not a factor to performance -- removing EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc. from the package would not make uBlock Origin faster or slower.
- Nyr 11y ago
  No one cares about 3 megabytes of disk usage. I did a quick memory "benchmark" for you. This is loading TechCrunch in 64 bit Chrome for Mac: * uBlock Origin: 92,9 MB * Adblock Fast: 54,7 MB Considering uBlock Origin packs a lot of functionality (and lists) which your extension lacks, you don't really have much advantage (if any). Also, consuming a "lower percentage of CPU" is counterproductive. Adblockers should peak the CPU for the smallest amount of time possible, not use a little percentage of CPU time during a longer period of time as you advertise. That's just ridiculous.
  - linksbro 11y ago
    It's clear they haven't made a "better, faster" adblock, just one they can pass off as "faster" with misleading benchmarks all for the goal of not fighting on behalf of the user, but for advertising their app firm.
  - 11y ago
gorhill 11y ago
The article you linked too says: > In contrast, adblockers like Adblock Plus rely on javascript’s built in regular expression parser This is not accurate for uBlock Origin. A majority of network filters in EasyList, EasyPrivacy, etc. do not need to be implemented as regular expressions, and for these uBlock Origin does not use a regular expression, it's simply a straightforward string comparison. Also, there are further optimizations when a filter is just a hostname (these are common too, especially in HOSTS files which can be parsed by uBlock).