Firefox version: benchmarking memory footprint
Pages 112
- Home
- 2014 07 22: µBlock and others: Blocking ads, trackers, malwares
- About "This other extension reports more stuff blocked!"
- About that CSS selector with "www.faceporn.net" in it...
- About the required permissions
- About this "your software" mindset
- Advanced settings
- Advanced user features
- Badware risks
- Behind the scene network requests
- Block more, way more
- Blocking mode
- Blocking mode: easy mode
- Blocking mode: hard mode
- Blocking mode: medium mode
- Blocking mode: nightmare mode
- Blocking mode: very easy mode
- Can you trust uBlock?
- Change log
- Cloud storage
- Compare: Memory footprint: what happens inside µBlock after installation
- Contributed memory usage: benchmarks over time
- Cosmetic filtering in µBlock: version 0.4.0.0 update
- Counterarguments
- Dashboard
- Dashboard: 3rd party filters
- Dashboard: Settings
- Dashboard: Whitelist
- Deploying uBlock Origin
- Disable hyperlink auditing beacon
- Does uBlock block ads or just hide them?
- Does µBlock block ads or just hide them?
- Does µBlock blocks ads or just hide them?
- Doesn't uBlock Origin add overhead to page load?
- DOM inspector
- Dynamic filtering
- Dynamic filtering examples
- Dynamic filtering (obsolete, need revision)
- Dynamic filtering: Benefits of blocking 3rd party iframe tags
- Dynamic filtering: Benefits of blocking 3rd party script and iframe tags
- Dynamic filtering: default deny
- Dynamic filtering: default deny: useful rulesets
- Dynamic filtering: disabling cosmetic filtering for the current site
- Dynamic filtering: Examples of usefulness of blocking 3rd party iframe tags
- Dynamic filtering: precedence
- Dynamic filtering: quick guide
- Dynamic filtering: rule syntax
- Dynamic filtering: to easily reduce privacy exposure
- Dynamic filtering: turn off uBlock everywhere
- Dynamic filtering: turn off uBlock everywhere except
- Dynamic filtering: turn off µBlock everywhere
- Dynamic filtering: Usefulness of blocking 1st party script tags
- Dynamic filtering: Usefulness of blocking inline script tags
- Dynamic URL filtering
- Element picker
- Experimental features
- Experimental filters
- FAQ
- Filter list licenses
- Filter lists from around the web
- Filter lists: gorhill
- Filter syntax extensions
- Firefox version: benchmarking memory footprint
- Firefox version: benchmarking memory footprint (2015 03 07)
- How to ...
- How to whitelist a web site
- Inline script tag filtering
- Launch and filter lists load performance
- Maintainership transfer of uBlock: post mortem
- Manually editing per site switches
- Memory footprint: what happens inside uBlock after installation
- Memory footprint: what happens inside µBlock after installation
- My answers to web store reviews where appropriate
- Myth: uBlock consumes over 80MB
- Myth: uBlock is just slightly less resource intensive than Adblock Plus
- Myth: µBlock consumes over 80MB
- Myth: µBlock is just slightly less resource intensive than Adblock Plus
- Notes on media coverage of uBlock Origin
- Notes on memory benchmarks, selfies
- Overview of uBlock's network filtering engine
- Overview of uBlock's network filtering engine: details
- Own memory usage: benchmarks over time
- Per site switches
- Prevent WebRTC from leaking local IP address
- Privacy policy
- Privacy stuff
- Procedural cosmetic filters
- Quick guide: popup user interface
- Reference benchmark
- Regular expression based filters
- Software known to have uninstalled uBlock Origin
- Static filter syntax
- Strict blocking
- Technical inaccuracies from around the web
- The logger
- The network request logger
- Tips and tricks waterfall
- Tools
- Tricks and tips
- Troubleshooting
- Tutorial: how to unbreak a site using the dynamic filtering pane
- uBlock and others: Blocking ads, trackers, malwares
- uBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared
- Various videos showing side by side comparison of the load speed of complex sites
- What uBlock can and can not (currently) do
- What µBlock can and can not (currently) do
- Who care about efficiency, I have 8 GB and|or a quad core CPU
- Who cares about efficiency, I have 8 GB and|or a quad core CPU
- Why don't you accept donations?
- µBlock and others: Blocking ads, trackers, malwares
- µBlock version 0.8.5: many changes
- µBlock vs. ABP: efficiency compared
- Show 97 more pages…
Note: Results have been updated with latest Firefox 41 and Chromium 45. The page is the same as the old one (Firefox 35/Chromium 39, archived here), except all figures have been updated using latest browser versions.

Infamous VIM test: ABP 370 MB vs. uBlock 373 MB. Firefox 41 64-bit. On Chromium-based browsers, ABP still suffers memory footprint issues from injecting a huge stylesheet in each page and in each embedded frames on a page.
Setup
- Ensure the blocker is the only active extension (to avoid results to be polluted by other extensions)
- Ensure click-to-play (or whatever equivalent) is enabled before launching the benchmark
- Select the following filter lists in the benchmarked blockers:
- EasyList
- Peter Lowe's Ad server list
- EasyPrivacy
- Fanboy's Social Blocking List
- Malware domain lists
- ABP-specifics: "Acceptable ads" disabled
- uBlock-specifics: uBlock's filters enabled (+140 filters), extra malware domains (+1,487 filters)
Steps
- Have the benchmarked blocker enabled and properly setup
- Have only the "new tab" opened
- Quit Firefox
- Launch Firefox
- Paste http://news.yahoo.com/ in address bar, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://news.google.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.huffingtonpost.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.cnn.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.nytimes.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.foxnews.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.nbcnews.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.dailymail.co.uk/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.washingtonpost.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste http://www.theguardian.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Open new tab, paste https://news.ycombinator.com/, wait for page to finish loading
- Leave the browser idle for two minutes
- Open new tab, paste
about:memory, wait for page to finish loading - Firefox: Click "Minimize memory usage" button in "Free memory" section
- Firefox: Click Measure button in "Show memory reports" section
- Firefox: Write down "Explicit Allocations" value (see notes below) / Chromium: Write down Σ value
So I did the exact above steps for no blocker, ABP, uBlock.
Results
-
Firefox
- No blocker: 751.22 MB (reference memory usage)
- Adblock Plus 2.6.10: 639.49 MB (reference minus 111.7 MB)
- uBlock Origin 1.1.1: 465.86 MB (reference minus 285.4 MB, ABP minus 173.6 MB)
-
Chromium
- No blocker: 1,342.87 MB (reference memory usage)
- Adblock Plus 1.9.3: 1,525.4 MB (reference plus 182.5 MB)
- uBlock Origin 1.1.1: 1,110.02 MB (reference minus 232.9 MB, ABP minus 415.4 MB)
Important: You can't compare directly the figures between the browsers -- they are taken using different methodology from one browser to the other. The benchmarks are more to compare the figures for various blockers within the same browser.
Notes
Tested on Firefox 41.0 64-bit and Chromium 45.0.2454.85 64-bit on Linux Mint. No other extensions were present.
For Firefox, I chose the "Explicit Allocations" figure because as per Firefox, it is "the single best number to focus on" with regard to memory usage.
Without going into details, hardware is i5 quadcore + 8 GB
If other users feel like repeating the tests, it would be nice just to confirm I got everything right.

