From 47852f9933907a57a58f6ff1b689e42c59ded363 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:52:42 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Updated uBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared (markdown) --- uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md index a7b005d..01f894c 100644 --- a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md +++ b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +**Note:** The data presented in this page were collated in 2015, so they shouldn't be considered up to date (the [section _Added memory footprint to web pages_](#added-memory-footprint-to-web-pages) is still relevant though). + +The code base of all content blockers have undergone significant changes since then. Still, in [recent benchmarks](https://www.debugbear.com/blog/chrome-extension-performance-2021#how-do-ad-blockers-and-privacy-tools-affect-browser-performance), uBO still comes out as the most efficient memory- and CPU-wise when compared to content blockers with similar set of features and capabilities. + +--- + Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles. Each extension was tested alone, with no other extensions enabled. Benchmarks were performed on Linux Mint 64-bit using Chromium. - [Own memory footprint](#own-memory-footprint)