raymond.cc - READ MORE...

10 Ad Blocking Extensions Tested for Best Performance • Raymond.CC

Raymond.cc Spined HTML

10 Ad Blocking Extensions Tested forWeightierPerformance • Raymond.CC Raymond.CC Blog Menu Home Forum Giveaways X-Ray 2.0 ContactWell-nighHome » Browser » 10 Ad Blocking Extensions Tested forWeightierPerformance 10 Ad Blocking Extensions Tested forWeightierPerformance HAL9000 Updated 2 years ago Browser 173 Comments Blocking website adverts in web browsers has been a hot topic in recent years and there are merits to both sides of the argument. Many sites out there bombard you with tons of ads, and quite often you will finger that you have no nomination but to use an ad blocker considering either the ads slow lanugo the site loading too much, or they are incredibly worrying and get in the way or distract from your browsing.On the other side, there are sites that try to inconvenience you as little as possible and be sensible with the value of ads displayed and their placement. Blanket use of ad blockers will hurt those sites just as much as the bad sites you finger have gone overboard with their ads. It’s no secret the vast majority of websites on the internet need to use ads to help pay for running costs. Staff, hardware, fast servers, fast CDNs and the like are not self-ruling and need to be paid for.But we cannot get yonder from the fact an ad blocker is probably the number one add-on for browsers like Chrome and Firefox, and will protract to be so for some time yet. Besides removing the adverts, ad blockers moreover save bandwidth by wearing lanugo the value of content a page loads, they can moreover help with your privacy by blocking scripts that track your browsing habits. There’s several ad blocking extensions available for Chrome and Firefox, and some work largest than others. To see what they do when when loading a web page, we’ve decided to put a number of ad blockers to the test. This test is well-nigh the performance of an ad blocker in terms of how quickly it loads a range of ad obstructed pages, the maximum value of memory it uses and how much stress it puts on the CPU.The Ad Blockers on TestThere are many increasingly ad blockers misogynist in Chrome than in Firefox which is the reverse of what we expected. Here are the ones we are testing for both browsers.AdBlock for Chrome – The most popular ad blocker for Chrome with reportedly over 200 million downloads. There was a Firefox version released briefly but that was pulled from the Firefox add on pages for unknown reasons. AdBlock has winning ad options for YouTube and Google search but they are off by default.AdBlock Plus for Chrome/AdBlock Plus for Firefox – One of the most well known ad blockers and moreover one of the most controversial considering AdBlock Plus started off the trend of introducing winning ad whitelists. The AdBlock Plus website moreover has versions for Opera, Safari, Maxthon, Internet Explorer and plane Android.AdBlock Pro for Chrome – AdBlock Pro is based on AdBlock Plus but has a simpler options interface and no winning ads option. The icon sawed-off sits in the write bar instead of the normal add on zone and has 3 simple options to disable, go to options or create a filter.Adguard for Chrome/Adguard for Firefox – Adguard is easy to use and uneaten blocking scripts can hands be added. Adguard’s main product is a shareware desktop using that blocks ads in a number of browsers without the need for browser add-ons. Beta versions of both add-ons are misogynist for testers.AdRemover for Chrome – AdRemover is based on AdBlock with just well-nigh the same number of options minus the support tab. On the squatter of it, most of the differences towards to be cosmetic and although it doesn’t ask for donations, there are social media buttons when clicking the icon.Ghostery for Chrome/Ghostery for Firefox – Ghostery can woodcut supersensual scripts, widgets, web beacons, privacy scripts and or undertow advertisements. The good thing well-nigh Ghostery is the ability to individually enable or disable scripts on a per site basis. Versions are misogynist for Opera, IE, Safari and mobile operating systems.SimplyWoodcutAds! for Chrome – This hasn’t been updated since 2014 and there’s reports that some ads aren’t stuff blocked, but it obstructed all ads on our test sites so we included it. SimplyWoodcutAds! (aka Simple Adblock) is the easiest to use and the only option is an opt-in to send usage statistics.SuperBlock AdBlocker for Chrome – This is flipside AdBlock fork and appears to be by the same developer as AdRemover. Apart from an uneaten entry in the filter list and a few styling changes, we can’t see much difference between the two, perhaps there are increasingly changes underneath.µ Adblock for Firefox – µ Adblock (Micro Adblock) is Easylist and EasyPrivacy based, and scrutinizingly as easy as it gets. Simply click the icon to block/unblock specific sites. There are only 3 options including blocking social buttons. One issue is µ Adblock hasn’t been updated since January 2015.µBlock Origin for Chrome/µBlock Origin for Firefox – An up and coming ad and script blocker for both Chrome and Firefox, it moreover claims to be very CPU and memory efficient. A lot but not too many scripts are obstructed out of the box and it’s easy to use with a number of other blocklists readily available. You can moreover indulge or woodcut specific sites from loading on the page via wide mode.Ad Blockers not testedAdBlockWhet(Firefox) – The project has now been discontinued and the tragedian recommends µBlock Origin instead.AdvertBan (Firefox) – Hasn’t been updated since 2012 and inevitably leaves most or all ads untouched.AdBlock Lite (Chrome and Firefox) – Left a number of ads untouched on our test sites, plane in the increasingly warlike Full mode. Various sources say the project has all but been abandoned.AdBlock Super (Chrome) –Withoutreading reviews and doing some testing we found that this addon unquestionably injects ads of its own from a number of third parties. At weightier it’s adware, at worst it’s malware and should be avoided at all costs.Unelevatedare highlighted ads we received when visiting Amazon.com.µBlock (Chrome and Firefox) – This version is substantially a clone of the original µBlock which was later renamed µBlock Origin. The tragedian of µBlock Origin, Raymond Hill, has since disassociated himself from the µBlock workshop and no longer contributes to the project. For these reasons we will test only µBlock Origin.How We Tested the Ad BlockersTesting websites can be tricky considering ads are served by third parties so a page is depending on external servers during loading. To try and plane out any inconsistencies and moreover any differences with other servers stuff used by the website, each webpage tested was refreshed 10 times in succession and any times considered unwont were discarded and the page refreshed again. Then we looked at 3 variegated scores:Google Chrome:Page load time – An stereotype taken for the page to load 10 times. We are using the Load event to time when the browser has finished retrieving all the resources required by the page. In Chrome this is a red score on the Network tab in Developer Tools. Caching is disabled so resources are refreshed each time.Peak memory usage – We watched the memory usage of the ad blocker’s process in the Chrome Task Manager (Shift+Esc), the maximum value of Megabytes used during the 10 page loads was recorded.Peak CPU usage – Similar to memory usage, using the Chrome Task Manager the maximum percentage of CPU usage was recorded during the 10 page loads.Mozilla Firefox:Page load time – Average time taken for the page to load 10 times. Firefox doesn’t have a separate load event time in its Network tab like Chrome does, so we used an addon called app.telemetry Page Speed Monitor to get the times.The frustrating thing well-nigh Firefox is you cannot get well-judged scores for memory or CPU usage of extensions during use considering unlike Chrome, everything is loaded into a single process. The about:memory page and a few related add ons don’t requite a true live score for memory usage. As a result we could only record results for page load times in Firefox.Tests were conducted on a 4GB,CadreDuo 2.2Ghz palmtop using WiFi and running Windows 7 as the operating system. Although the tests could have been run on a more powerful system, we believe the palmtop will produce increasingly representative scores for the stereotype computer.All ad blockers were installed and used with their default settings, nothing else was changed. The only exception is Ghostery which runs a wizard on startup where you need to segregate what to block, for that we selected only theRazzmatazzblocking option. Chrome 44 and Firefox 40 were the browsers used for testing.Next we’ll test 10 websites to see how the ad blockers perform. 1 2 3Next › View All You might moreover like: 10 Popular Web Browsers Tested for Memory and CPU Usage Mozilla Firefox 64-bit Performance Compared to 32-bit 4 Ways to Force Incompatible Firefox Add-ons or Extensions to Install 7 Web Browsers and Extensions to Save Internet Bandwidth Usage 3WeightierExtensions toHandsAuto Fill Forms in Chrome and Firefox 173 Comments - Write aScuttlebuttDr.Vodka 2 months ago Please compare the non Browser Extension Version of Adguard versus all this. I think Adguard will Win this Game :P. Reply HAL9000 2 months ago Actually, I use the desktop Adguard and think it’s great. However, this vendible is well-nigh browser extensions, therefore, the Adguard desktop app won’t be included. Reply Raymond.cc fan 3 months agoOverlysince this vendible was written (very useful by the way), Ghostery has wilt ENORMOUSLY BLOATED and uBlock Origin has stayed lean. Please do an updated performance comparison. Reply Tom 3 months ago Good article. The problem with UBlock Origin in relation to Adblock Plus is that, if you have Ghostery and Privacy Badger installed also, Ghostery and Privacy Badger seem to “catch” increasingly items coming through with UBlock Origin than it does with Adblock Plus, with EXACTLY the same filters applied.Maybe it ways that UBlock Origin is not set up properly, but with Adblock Plus, you subscribe to the filter list and go, rather than tinkering with the settings.To stave the so-called “white listed ads” in Adblock Plus, just untick the box to indulge them in the “Filter Preferences” section, and they will be blocked. Reply Andy 6 months ago Please do a refresh this summer (or sometime later) :) Reply Nevi 6 months ago The problem with Ublock origin is it cannot function with HTTPS everywhere, or it go sour in something once in a while. Well I probably find something. Reply mic 7 months ago What well-nigh uMatrix? You have to configure it for every site, but its bulletproof. You have full controll. Reply boozer 7 months ago Damn good article, I’ve been looking for a solid comparison for years. lol So it looks like uBlock Origin and AdGuard are the top dogs, and all other forks and imitators are junk, cool. AdGuard is unconfined if want to stave the techiness of uBlock Origin. :) Reply Red 7 months ago Thank you, that’s an spanking-new review.Would you, please, moreover do a review of the effectiveness of the same adblockers? This would be a unconfined help to wordplay the effectiveness question from many users. Reply Grigorijs 9 months agoUnconfinedarticle. It helped me to make next decision: uBlock Origin – is my chose. Thanks. Reply SendX 9 months agoSpanking-newarticle. I had uBlock Origin. It seemed like it BROKE half of my hair-trigger sites: banking, office VPN etc. AdGuard seems to be a decent compromise. Reply Hans Groener 9 months ago Thanks Raymond! Reply tom 10 months ago Do you plan to refresh the adblock test? It would be nice to see a comparison to the opera with seated adblock and to Firefox Quantum with enabled tracking protector on always.Thanks for the unconfined adblock comparison Reply arana 7 months ago your financial and vpn sites have ads?, weird, unpunctually you can just disable ublock on those sites permanently and then you get the weightier thing overall Reply Piter 10 months ago Do you plan to refresh the adblock test? It would be nice to see a comparison to the opera with seated adblock and to Firefox Quantum with enabled tracking protector on always.Thanks for the unconfined adblock comparison Reply Hits Blunt 11 months ago Me: From my research: AdBlock™️ and its variations are the most well-know, but Ghostery is the fan favorite. But then µBlock is weightier from a technical memory & performance aspect.Stuffin IT I’m drawn to µBlock, so I ‘d moreover recommend it.*Hits Blunt*Friend: “yeah but which one is the weightier for browsing porn???”Me: Bro i don’t know——- PLEASE RAYMOND HELP US Reply Kurtis Engle 12 months agoFathomthe data. But you seem to have missed mention of a second important reason adblock is necessary. Content providers are subject to the hysterical religion that claims my desktop vest to someone else and they can put anything they like on it.Not so. This is my computer. I don’t want to have to sweep my desktop wipe every time I load a page or squint virtually sticky banners and bars to see content. Adblock is not just well-nigh advertising. It is moreover well-nigh jerky lawmaking monkeys who have no respect. Reply dan 1 year ago Very well washed-up test work. ypou have helpoed many people with this. Reply POI 1 year ago ublock origin is now practically unusable (unless you can tell me how to configure) for youtube. That’s using both chromium (Iron) and Palemoon.You’ll get a mass of videos that will not play, with the ridiculous error and link to ‘Watch on Youtube’. Since you’re on youtube, when you click the link, it simply reloads the page to the word-for-word same error.For Palemoon, we use Adblock Latitude (available from their site) which works & allows viewing of video. Haven’t figured out which to use for Chromium (Iron) but we are curious well-nigh ‘Fair AdBlocker App. Lots of good reviews on it. Reply HAL9000 1 year ago I’ve just tried ublock origin on 40 or 50 Youtube videos and it worked perfectly fine in Chrome. If you have customized any settings in ublock origin at all, maybe you should uninstall and reinstall the extension. Reply john 10 months ago Palemoon user reporting in.Moreoverhave uBlock Origin installed. No youtube issues. The browser and this extension has been a godsend. It’s my go-to on any lower-end system, USB marching systems, systems running in RAM with well-nigh 1-2gbs. On my room-sized super-computer, I use Chrome or Firefox since so much of the lawmaking is unrelated to unquestionably delivering pages… Reply hans-jürgen 1 year ago Could you include the internal adblocker in the new Opera versions in you comparison? They requirement to be 3x faster than external blockers. Reply Karan 1 year ago Hi I use both adguard and u woodcut origin. Is there any benefits of using both ad blockers at same time? Reply HAL9000 1 year ago Not really, one or the other will be fine. Reply Riquich 1 year ago Wow, this was a quite elaborate test work. Thank you for your effort, I have been using ublock for long but wondered if anything else was largest but nope, thanks to you :) Reply unhesitatingly 1 year ago Noticeable difference with ublock, thanks for recommendation Reply Ivan Ivanov 1 year ago You can install chrome extension “7 Times Faster”. It speed up your internet in 2 times by blocking ads and tracking. It’s fastest ad blocker Reply John 1 year ago The uBlock Origin creator is Raymond Hill. Is this the same Raymond of this review? Reply HAL9000 1 year ago No, Raymond Hill is not unfluctuating with Raymond.cc in any way. There’s increasingly than one Raymond in the world you know! ;) Reply hamid mazuji 1 year ago for any browser, and moreover palemoon, seamonkey, if there is no support from these apps, you could try winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm this is just a host file. that’s all you basically need. i will experiment with some of these apps just out of curiosity, but i think you will come to like the whilom suggestion. it’s so universal, you can use it on anything Reply Chris P 1 year ago Have you washed-up a test for iOS content (ad) blockers? Reply HAL9000 1 year ago No, we haven’t tested mobile blockers and it is unlikely we will do so. Reply Rob D 1 year ago Appreciated the professional tideway and clarity of this report unbearable to disable my ad blocker on raymond.cc – which I’m very pleased to see did not adversely stupefy my appreciation of the site – and typesetting mark the page. As a long time user of AdBlock Plus and Ghostery you’ve moreover given me a reason to squint then at uBlock Origin.As mentioned a couple of times in comments already, the broader field of privacy and user-side tenancy would moreover be interesting if given the same editorial treatment. That’s a less focused subject but there’s probably an end-user sweet spot for ad control, privacy tenancy and content tenancy add-ons, trading off security, tenancy and safety with complexity and resources. What is the optimum combination? Reply Justin 1 year agoUnconfinedarticle, thanks! Any endangerment you could do a similar wringer of ad-blocking tools for iOS devices? Reply HAL9000 1 year ago Highly unlikely, I don’t own and have no wish to own any Apple devices… ;) Reply R1ck 1 year ago I would like to thank you for this test, I scrutinizingly bought AdGuard lifetime license. although it works fine and 35 dollars for the lifetime license is still a good deal, your test shows that ublock origin is superior and free!thanks again. Reply Michael 1 year ago This test did not include Adguard, just the Adguard browser extention that is free.Adguard software that you pay for is very different, it can woodcut ads in software wideness your PC when misogynist and is often faster than every option here for browsing withal with increasingly features. Reply Perry Miles 1 year ago Why was Disconnect not included in these tests? I’ve noticed that it blocks a lot increasingly trackers than Ghostery. Reply HAL9000 1 year ago As we have said before, this is a test for extensions that have a defended ad blocking option. It’s not for all the unstipulated purpose privacy/script blocking extensions like NoScript, Disconnect or Privacy Badger, there are far too many of those to test. Reply James 1 year ago I got here considering I was looking for a review of Adguard AdBlocker (which promises an villainous lot on their webpages). It did fairly well versus the others but what I was mostly curious well-nigh was the very effectiveness. This would be a much increasingly difficult vendible to write. That is, how constructive is a particular adBlocker versus tracking, popups, video ads, anti-adblocker scripts, etc vs the others.Currently I have a few extensions installed (Disconnect, Decentraleyes, the EFF stuff, etc.) and trying to find the right mix. Memory, cpu usage, etc… are unconfined stats but if a well-behaved adblocker allows 5% increasingly surveillance type attempts, that would be 5% too much. I’d be willing to take a hit on memory usage and some other related issues.Another vendible could be how a combination of privacy/security extensions work together. Reply cusack 2 years ago ublock for me. the weightier adblocker. Reply pyro 2 years ago Is it “you-block” or “micro-block”? Reply HAL9000 2 years ago These days it is uBlock (You block), I think the tragedian reverted it from μBlock (Micro Block) a while when to stave confusion. Reply Three Potato 2 years ago I use Adblock just considering it is only ad blocker that can whitelist individual Youtube channels. It’s nice to support those you want and don’t support those you don’t want. Reply amad 2 years ago have u tried zenmate web firewall, its said to be based on µBlock Origin, i rarely looked at it since no setting available, its just works. Reply Mike 2 years ago Nicely written (Y).But there is flipside ad blocker which I am using these days and it is pretty tomfool – Bad Ad Johnny. I would like you to test it moreover considering I couldn’t find any error in that BAJ. Reply Jon 2 years agoSpanking-newand thorough testing! I have used AdBlock on Chrome and AdBlock Plus on Firefox for years. But I will be trying out uBlock Origin and possibly ghostery without seeing what a big performance difference there is. Reply Charlie Lewis 2 years ago Found you guys here a couple of days ago while searching for a wipe Windows 7 ISO (which, by the way was obtained withal with all of your spanking-new supporting data/info/suggestions). Thanks!On my 64bit Windows 7 the main browser is the Chrome-flavored Slimjet, loaded with its’ native Ad Blocker, Ghostery, Dr.Web, HTTPS Everywhere, uBlock Origin and Adblock AdBlocker. Similar browser extensions in well-nigh the same value are what I have in my OS X Mavericks Safari browser.The main difference is in the time it takes for the same, identical websites I visit to load on these two variegated computers. The Macbook Pro takes literally a fraction of the time than the W7 does. It scrutinizingly pains me to unshut Yahoo Mail while in Slimjet. Go figure, right?In flipside forum where I’d begun a thread to find whether there was an app or program designed to zestful a user *which* adblocker was causing issues on a site that wouldn’t function unless it (the adblocker) was disabled, an irate user there insisted that the rationalization for the wait in W7 pages loading was directly owing to the number of adblockers installed.What say the jury here? Anyone else had pages take too long to come to life considering of adblocker usage? Reply HAL9000 2 years ago I’m not sure why the other person got mad, but in reality, he does have a point. It’s useless having increasingly than one ad blocker considering they are all trying to do the word-for-word same thing, so there’s unchangingly a risk they will get tripped up by each other occasionally. And you have 4 ad blockers which compounds the problem.It’s a similar story with antivirus, people who think the increasingly the largest are sadly misguided. Reply Lock 2 years ago Try RedMorph! No while list, total user control, fastest and most well-constructed tracker blocker on the market Reply Bob 2 years ago Why did you take the overall memory information in Windows and not the RSS size, for example? I do not think your memory measurement ratherish represents the efficacy of each tool to handle their activities using the lowest value of memory. Also, what was the update interval for both memory and cpu values regarding stereotype numbering and displaying? Reply HAL9000 2 years ago As far as I’m aware, RSS is the same as Working Set in Windows, and that includes shared memory, so the used memory values will be higher than those listed. Private Working Set is largest considering it shows the memory used only by the process itself. Both Windows Task Manager and Chrome Task Manager use that value as standard.The update interval for memory and CPU values were real time. Reply Bob 2 years ago Thank you for clarifying this. My bad then, I stand corrected. Reply Renan 2 years ago Amazing test! Very scientific. Reply Mike 2 years ago The results you showed were technically based, but what well-nigh the functionality of the variegated software? Did one woodcut increasingly ads and alimony the user safer than flipside one? I’m willing to wait a bit longer if I don’t see porn ads or expose my browser to mallware. Reply HAL9000 2 years agoScrutinizinglyall ad blockers rely on the same woodcut lists so they woodcut the same value of ads. So in terms of safety from bad ads, they are virtually all the same. Reply Lucky 2 years ago Excellent! Thanks a lot! Reply Hannes Schurig 2 years agoWide-stretchingtesting, good visualization, unconfined article! Thanks! Reply T 2 years agoUnconfinedread! I had been looking for this very article…One increasingly adblocker that i would have liked to see on the list is Bluhell FIrewall, which i use on my Android with Firefox (I believe its only for Firefox) Its not as good as Ublock, but is VERY easy on CPU…It blocks unbearable ads to make the internet easy to navigate still…Only time i may get an ad with BLuhell is going on sites most ppl dont go to anyways…No options or filtering, at all…Just an on/off sawed-off in the toolbar, which is welcomed by A LOT of ppl who want “simple” Reply Peratchi Selvam 2 years ago Hi, Did you cleared caches and cookies everytime while testing each of the extensions? Reply HAL9000 2 years ago Browser caching was disabled for all testing. Reply Peter Owens 2 years ago “As said above, we’ve no interest in testing exclusively on sites people possibly shouldn’t be going to anyway”Not a scuttlebutt I expected to see. Everyone at some point either visits such a site intentionally or unintentionally. I am not sure just what your scuttlebutt is intended to imbricate anyway. Any site where WOT suggest a poor rating? Reply HAL9000 2 years ago Sorry, that sentence referred to a now removed thread where someone asked if we could rerun the tests and use illegal video streaming/downloading sites as the test sites. Reply Peter Blaise 2 years ago . WOT Web Of Trust has been pulled as of 2016-12, reportedly considering they were selling user browsing info. . Reply Bill 2 years agoSpanking-newjob on stated objective (me stuff impressed and very appreciative). This is one of the very few objective trials in an important area. I think any PC oriented magazine would welcome it.Please consider including a few increasingly products (me stuff curious and self-interested as I useMistinessand Disconnect). As you note for PrivacyBadger, these 3 are increasingly privacy oriented but do overlap functionally to woodcut some ads and (I think) modernize responsiveness.Please note whether you encountered obvious/gross site problems (me stuff critical). Perhaps strictly outside of scope, but trivially difficult if limited to skin-deep observations and still interesting.Please consider expanding the telescopic to include effectiveness, including privacy measures (me stuff curious, encouraging, and very greedy). AKA, the limitations and remoter research paragraph.As for the remainder of your copious self-ruling time … (me be humorously(?) well-pleased of your contribution). Reply HAL9000 2 years ago Thanks for your input. We encountered no major page problems during testing, if we had, they would have been mentioned.We had to yank the line somewhere for what to include in the test. There are several dozen extensions that can woodcut scripts, which just happen to woodcut ads. To include them all or to decide what to alimony and what not just isn’t feasible.Effectiveness in terms of ad blocking is scrutinizingly identical for all extensions considering virtually all are based on Easylist, so they woodcut or miss the same things. Testing privacy is vastitude the telescopic of this vendible and an unshortened subject in itself. Reply Bill 2 years agoSpanking-newarticle. You did not mention whether blocking caused problems, nor evaluate web page appearance.Ad blocking is moreover well-nigh privacy. You did not mention how many 3rd party cookies were blocked, etc.I hope you will consider examining Privacy Badger, Disconnect,Mistinessby Abine, and HTTP Switchboard soon.Again, thanks for the unconfined info here and over the years.Moreoverthanks to Tom Trottier for his nice list. Unfortunately, combining some of these can powerfully disable some.If sites stuck to simple ads (especially no wink or moving ads, popups, text rollovers, skyscraper ads on the side that prevent/delay scrolling), loaded content surpassing ads, respected Do Not Track (which does _not_ just midpoint do not customize!), and did not try to disguise/confuse ads with content, none of these would be necessary. Reply HAL9000 2 years ago As we made well-spoken in the article, this not well-nigh how constructive these extensions are concerning privacy and cookie or script blocking. It’s purely well-nigh efficiency and the performance effect they have on your CPU and memory while blocking ads.Something like Privacy Badger was not included considering it is not designed to be an ad blocker but a script blocker and privacy tool. Blocking ads is a by product of script blocking and Privacy Badger themselves make this well-spoken in their FAQ. Reply phil 2 years ago info for those like me feeling left out… heh Adblock Latitude is a uncontrived fork of Adblock Plus made specifically for the Pale Moon browser. addons.palemoon.org/extensions/privacy-and-security/adblock-latitude/ Reply TomTrottier 2 years ago Ads are only the surface of malware & bandwidth. Other extensions offer preferably grain tenancy of what gets loaded: µMatrix offer fine grained tenancy of cookies, css, images, scripts, plugins, XHR, and frames BetterPrivacy controls wink cookies Calomel SSL validation shows how secure the webpage is Certificate Patrol shows who has OKd new certificates CleanLinks deobfuscates subconscious links CookieWhitelist controls cookies Masking Agent stops “fingerprinting” as a substitute for cookies. Noscript controls scripts & XSS Priv3 stops social site tracking of you on other sites Privacy Badger conlrols most 3rd party cookies Redirect Bypasser gives you uncontrived links to other sites Redirect Remover cleans links on loading pages Request Policy controls what other sites are loaded. SmartReferer sets the “referer page” for external links UATenancycontrols what websites know of your OS & Browser UnshortenIt shows safety ratings of indirect links. ——– The downside of using all these is that you often have to explictly unshut multiple doors for sites to work as you want, but usually, only once per site. The upside is — no malware delivered by scripts. Reply Matt 2 years ago The sad thing is I would have once thought this unreasonable. Now I’m considering using most of the things you have listed here. Reply Filip Djumbazov 3 years ago Finally, some objective numbers…there is a new adblocker I use in the past 2 weeks adblock ultimate. can’t wait to see how it performs in your tests Reply Peter 3 years ago Though to be pearly there are some adblockers which support increasingly filter list formats. For example uBlock Origin supports hosts files like hpHosts. Others don’t support this format so they won’t be worldly-wise to woodcut sites with that list.Moreovermany adblockers can’t woodcut sites from loading completely or woodcut redirections but uBO can. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Several ad blockers support custom lists and so you can hands woodcut using the hpHosts lists or anything else and the results will be the same. The point with uBLock Origin is it’s classed as part firewall by its developer and so isn’t merely an ad blocker. If this was a test of malware protection or firewall skills from your ad blocker uBO would probably win, but that’s a whole other subject entirely. Reply Rishi 3 years ago Wonderful post! Been using uBlock Origin for months now. Glad this vendible just reaffirmed my decision. Reply Matthew 3 years ago Thanks for the article. I’ve used most of these and have settled on uBlock Origin vacated for Chrome and Firefox on Mac. Reply Ribsome 3 years ago Very good post, now I would like you to test desktop adblockers like admuncher, adguard premium trial or Adfender. GTsoft etc. Reply Stukov 3 years ago I dont know well-nigh you guys; ublock origin DO ITS JOB REALLY WELL! I tried all does other stuff but ublock is much increasingly efficient for me! THUMBS UP! Reply Robert Dittrich 3 years agoUnconfinedtesting guys. However, I’ve tried several adblockers over the last few months and all have had one major problem – over time, as I have had to retread my filters to indulge ads on some sites that simply do not load buttons and forms when enabled, all of the adblockers I’ve used have at some point slowed firefox and my palmtop in general, to the point where it is simply unuseable. Originally, I used adblock+, then went to the whet version when this slowed everything down, then adblock whet stopped working at all, so I tried uBlock Origin and lastly, AdGuard. They have all sowed everything lanugo without well-nigh a month or so of use. I have used various tools to wipe everything up (cache cleaning, junk file removal, reg. cleaning, defrag, etc), but they have little effect once an adblocker has been installed for a while and the only cure has been to uninstall the adblocker. Anybody else had this problem and any endangerment of longer-term testing of these add-ons? Reply Wayne 2 years ago Robert, I know my response comes a while without yours, but I see you were looking for feedback. I have been using adblockers for many years and all the reputable ones noticeably speed up page load times and browsing in general. The fact that you mention that they slow lanugo your palmtop in unstipulated is an indication that you have flipside issue that is causing this problem. The most logical would be that you have a low spec system and that the uneaten RAM and CPU usage of the adblockers is maxing it out. It is moreover possible you may have been infected by some form of malware that is attempting to counteract the effect of the adblocker. Have you tried running Resource Monitor or a similar utility to identify the real rationalization of the problem? Reply Robert 2 years ago Wayne, some sites do need to be unliable to show ads to load. Never it was a cpu or ram issue. Sometimes they do tricky things. Sometimes a refresh can shirk it, but I think it depends on the way they set up the page load. If it’s waiting for an ad to say “Hi!” it will not load the rest and you get a half assed page loaded. Reply Caroline Black 3 years ago This is a unconfined post, so much well researched and well presented detail. Thank you! Reply Caroline's Lover 3 years ago I stipulate with in every single bit. Thank you for the kiss. Reply JustChuck69 3 years ago I use FireFox 41.0.2 with AdBlock Plus and I un selected to ” indulge non intrusive ads ” but on sites that do limit the value of ads and that i use and like i white list them ! I have a decent older quad cadre and a few ads do not slow it lanugo but some news site and c/net and use so many ads and trackers and wheels play videos that i depend on AdBlock Plus !This site is white listed as you guys do limit the ads and i can see your need for revenue !Thanks HAL9000 and Raymond and alimony up the good work ! Reply saturn 3 years agoUnconfinedinfo. Reply Mark F 3 years ago Just wanted to say thanks for such a thoroughly researched and wide-stretching article. I’ve been doing a lot of Googling for Ad Blocker research, and there is limited data, and much of it is outdated. This was refreshing, alimony up the unconfined work! I’d love to see a similar vendible well-nigh effectiveness, considering picking an adblocker (or increasingly than one) is really the sum of performance + effectiveness. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago I’m glad you found the vendible useful :)Testing effectiveness is far too difficult to measure which is why we haven’t and won’t be testing for that. Testing performance is easier considering we’re talking well-nigh nonflexible numbers, effectiveness is nonflexible to pin lanugo and isn’t a specified score or measurement. Reply Marc 3 years ago To everyone asking well-nigh it: Rating efficiency is very nonflexible expressly since a blocker that blocks increasingly might moreover unravel increasingly sites.Would be nice if you could include Karma Blocker if you overly run the test again. It’s not like Privacy Badger which has to learn but instead uses a scoring system like SpamAssassin. Reply Leeroy 3 years ago Thanks for the thorough testing!What I’d love to see is a test of adblocking in the router, with the PC running only cosmetic filters/element hiding rules. How much faster would that be, would it save any value of CPU/RAM?Because setting up ad blocking in your router is increasingly of a hassle than installing a browser extension, insights from such a test would be really useful.On the +4GB RAM PC front, the wrestle is moot. But for old PCs, netbooks and smartphones it is crucial. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Blocking from a router would be very much hit and miss considering there are so many variegated routers out there and it would be difficult to get get well-judged results. Some routers wouldn’t do that anyway and for those that did it would be a lot of transmission work.On the memory front, there are a lot of smaller form factor devices virtually these days that run Windows and most of them are coming installed with 2GB of RAM.Planein 2015, memory usage is still hair-trigger on a lot of newer devices. Reply Arvind 3 years ago I’d moreover love to see is a test of adblocking in the router as this blocks abs on the iPad & other devices moreover we can woodcut websites that are not suitable for kids. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago That is just far too much effort as in my own router it would require putting in thousands of obstructed addresses or keywords one at a time. Most people aren’t interested in doing that when an ad blocker (or parental tenancy software) can be setup and use with a few clicks in a couple of minutes. Reply skittlebrau 3 years ago FYI you wouldn’t need to type them in manually. You can use this: pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/It allows you to set up options for list output to suit whatever using you want to throw the list into. I use the dnsmasq preset so I can woodcut ads on my unshortened home network at the router level. HAL9000 3 years ago Unfortunately that is exactly my point, my own router doesn’t indulge me to add any type of list and I would have to add each IP to woodcut manually, one at a time. Many other routers probably don’t indulge subtracting of lists. As my router is supplied by and locked to my ISP, I am unable to use a variegated router. Pelimies 3 years ago I transpiration AdBlock pro -> µBlock Origin, and i’m very happy now. µBlock Origin is much lighter & faster. I will never use AdBlock Pro anymore. Reply gorhill 3 years ago > does uBlock have any similar CSS at allYes, CSS rules are supported. ABP calls these “element hiding filters”, while I prefer to undeniability them “cosmetic filters”. It is possible to create a replacement of your ABP settings and import the resulting text file directly from the “My filters” pane: uBlock Origin will pericope and import your custom filters from the file. Reply gorhill 3 years ago Sorry, this was meant as an wordplay to Marah Marie at the marrow of the scuttlebutt section, not sure why this ended at the top. Reply Chris 3 years ago One worthwhile test would be, does the script have a way to deal with sites that refuse to work if they sense an AdBlocker? Hulu wants you to see their ads and won’t load video without your adblocker turned off. Some adblockers have ways to get virtually this. I’d like to know which ones do without installing each one. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago That is obviously something completely unrelated to what we are testing, we’re testing their performance, not their effectiveness. Reply Mark F 3 years ago This vendible was great! Do you have flipside vendible that tests effectiveness, or plans to do so? Reply raymondreader 3 years ago @HAL9000Was just suggesting to state that “coding efficiency isn’t the purpose of this test” in the article.And Firefox 41 performane improvememts are specifically for ABP. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago The ABP improvements for Firefox 41 are memory related so it has no validness on our results as we didn’t test Firefox memory usage (and we’ve explained why). Reply raymondreader 3 years ago @Raymond> comparing the coding efficiency> isn’t the purpose of this testThat should be made well-spoken in the vendible considering it may be taked that it is. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago It’s made well-spoken the blockers on test were ALL left at default settings. If ABP runs immensely compared to the others on default settings, that is the fault of ABP. To transpiration just ABP settings is unchaste to requite it largest scores, to transpiration and test all settings in each blocker would take dozens of man hours to test and is simply not possible.On your other point, we will not be retesting for Firefox 41 as it would then be unfair to not retest for Chrome 45 considering it moreover has some improvements. If we did that there would be multiple retests every few weeks for each new browser release, and that is something we are unable to do. Reply raymondreader 3 years agoWell-nighthe scuttlebutt that mentioned Firefox 41 improving Adblock Plus memory usage :It is unquestionably an overall performance resurgence including page load time and not only memory usage so it is worth a follow-up.Also using the defaults is unfair to ABP considering tweaking it and subtracting increasingly filter lists (at least the same as others) makes it woodcut increasingly and perform much better. Reply Raymond 3 years ago If every adblock is tweaked with the same settings and configured to use the same filters, then we’re comparing the coding efficiency which isn’t the purpose of this test. We’re increasingly focused on testing the out of the box settings which is mostly used by normal users. It is the author’s job to ensure that their extension have the right wastefulness in efficiency in blocking ads while not slowing lanugo the browser to a crawl.Furthermore, there are adblockers that does not have any configuration at all. It doesn’t make sense to struggle hacking the extension and then benchmark with the rest. That would be plane increasingly unfair… Reply Jim Jackson 3 years ago Ghostery is not an adblocker strictly speaking though it does skiver a lot of ads its purpose is to stop tracking scripts.I understand that uBlockO uses less resources if ‘parse and enforce cosmetic filters’ is unchecked. This deals with the hiding elements of the adblock filters. Some people need this but I could superintendency less. I’m curious though whether you had that option checked or not.Great work btw. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago You are right, Ghostery is not a traditional ad blocker and increasingly of an all round privacy blocker. We chose to include it considering it can be used as a standalone ad blocker and you can segregate only to woodcut ads going through the wizard on setup. That is why Ghostery is in and other privacy and script blockers are out.As it says in the article, all ad blockers were left at their defaults. If we transpiration a setting for one addon, we have to start waffly settings for all of them, and that is definitely a road we were not prepared to go down. Reply Peter Blaise 2 years ago . Perhaps inspecting and reporting on each ad-block program’s options would suffice, but maybe that’s a separate “Tweaking Ad-Blockers” article, not an update to this.I suppose the rencontre is to inform the user well-nigh the effect of choices: — one software may offer increasingly blocking sufficiency = longer load timeBUT that may be preferable to some folks versus— flipside software loading quicker = less blocking capabilityI often use AdBlock Plus [WoodcutElement ] highlighter to remove dancing twistedness and filagree that the web page designers implemented regardless of script calls for external advertisements.Yes, I know that is not the intended use of ad-block software.But, just as opening a can of paint with a screw suburbanite is not in the owner’s operation transmission for a screw driver, yet we all do it … the worthiness to manually add [WoodcutElement ] to any web site’s pages is a godsend for me to recoup for bad web page designers who have not read Steve Krug’s spanking-new typesetting on web diamond “Don’t Make Me Think”.I’d like to replace all web page’s crappy CSS with my own easy-to-read neat, simple, academic-reference-book-style web page diamond if I could ( see csszengarden.com for possibilities ).I’m exploring browser extensions to tweak font size relationships, and to shrink page % without shrinking readability, and an ad-blocker’s worthiness to moreover eliminate non-content “noise” is just one piece of my ultimate goal — CONSISTENT READABLE WEB PRESENTATIONS EVERYWHERE.I digress, but just considering what I want isn’t a straightforward product at the moment doesn’t midpoint I’m not onto something. . Reply Robert Visser 3 years ago Hi. Thanks for all the work & testing. Very helpful. Any thoughts / wits with any of these ad blocking extensions on OSX , esp. Yosemite & El Capitan? Have you tried Raymond Hill’s other extension, uMatrix? It provides an variety of spare criteria — woodcut or whitelist cookies, css, images, plugins, scripts, XHRs, iframes, etc. Although the user interface is increasingly time consuming, I suspect the greater selectivity enables a remoter reduction on browser resources. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago No, I haven’t tried or had any wits with these addons in OS X.I have tried uMatrix personally but not for these tests. It is for wide users only and the tragedian calls it increasingly of a firewall than a simple ad blocker, and you need to know how to use it properly to unblock elements that are causing pages not to load correctly, which there is a pearly endangerment of. Reply Decent60 3 years ago Glad to see you guys doing flipside article! Was well-nigh to remove it from my hotbar for the RSS feed.I use Cyberfox (64-bit), Waterfox (64-bit), Firefox and Chrome for my daily web browsers (each has their specific purpose). With all of them I use Adblock Plus, with some minor tweaking to the subscription and disabling “acceptable” ads. I retested these sites as I went through the vendible to see if page loading and website cpu process were similar. One thing I think is a major difference is the speed of your connection. All but TMZ, I was significantly faster than the readings you had. TMZ unquestionably was spot on with yours lol. However, I was moreover using a VPN connecting to the Netherlands at that time (which made little to no difference upon disabling it). I am, however, going to switch a few browsers virtually to use microBlock and Ghostery to see if they are any largest for what I use the internet for. main reason I haven’t switched to them is that they were said to “break” webpages. This was coming from a few review sites. However, I do trust you Hal9000 and Raymond a bit increasingly than some of them, so I’ll requite it a shot and see how it stacks up to what I am used to. I see this vendible serving 2 purposes: primarily testing out the performance of each of the major ad blocker out there in a head-to-head controlled environment. The secondary is giving people a squint at other options to see if there is any resurgence that can be made to their setup. While the secondary ties with the primary, the point was that some of these ad blockers I hadn’t heard of. Specifically one that ranked in the top 3: Adguard You guys unchangingly do unconfined work, and while I wish you could more, I know it’s nonflexible to find new and interesting topics to do while moreover finding the time to do them all. I do thank you for all the nonflexible work you washed-up and I’ll be leaving you on my hotbar to see when the next vendible will be :) Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Thank you for the nice words, it’s nice when somebody “gets” the goal of the vendible and not just coming up with a “you missed xxx” comment…;)My connection is virtually 10mbps so it’s not terribly slow, but it’s not terribly fast either, we moreover had to be quite shielding at what times to run the tests. Some sites show a sizeable difference between where you are and whether you are running the test in peak or off peak hours.Don’t delete us from your RSS just yet, we’re trying to get increasingly new wares out in the not too afar future…:) Reply FZ26000 3 years ago Very interesting vendible and test …!I first used AdBlock, then later AdBlock+, then AdBlockWhet+ Ghostery, and now for a few months uBlock Origin, and now pages load at least twice faster than with AdBlockWhet+ Ghostery …!I just can’t count all the friends and family members I “converted” to these blockers, and that can now surf much faster and “peacefully” … Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Thank you, You have to be shielding when running increasingly than one extension that does the same thing considering it can unquestionably slow the whole blocking process down. If AdblockWhet+ Ghostery was setup to woodcut the same scripts, that could have been part of your problem.There’s not doubt though, on it’s own µBlock Origin is the fastest single ad blocker we tried in the test. Reply RyanVM 3 years ago FYI, Firefox 41 (currently in beta) includes fixes that dramatically modernize memory usage with Adblock Plus enabled. Might be worth a follow-up! mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/41.0beta/releasenotes/ Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Interesting information but until Firefox offers a increasingly well-judged way to find out how much memory an extension unquestionably uses, there will be nothing to follow up… Reply RyanVM 3 years ago What well-nigh measuring site memory usage via about:memory? Also, nightly builds have an experimental about:performance page that offers increasingly fine-grained information such as CPU usage. I believe it’s enabled for DevEdition builds as well. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago About:memory doesn’t show the true value of memory used by the extension. For example some extensions will show in there as using only a few KB while the Firefox process itself goes up by maybe 20-70MB as soon as you enable it. The About:addons-memory extension which pulls its data from there gives a unenduring explanation.The About:performance in Firefox nightly is still experimental, isn’t totally reliable and doesn’t update the CPU usage numbers in real-time, the window is currently a big resource hog in itself. If when it’s released to the stable channel, it works well, then the performance window may be something we could read CPU usage from… Reply name 3 years ago using CyberFox 41 beta with Adblock Plus, unconfined improvement. Reply FFreestyleRR 3 years ago Nice test. My nomination is Adblock Plus considering of the Element Hiding Helper nevertheless it is a resource hog sometimes. Too bad that Adfender wasn’t included in the test. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago On pure performance, ABP is not the best, plane with winning ads turned off it’s well-nigh average.Adfender wasn’t included simply considering it’s not a browser extension. Reply FFreestyleRR 3 years ago I didn’t say that ADB is the weightier but the Element Hiding Helper is really a nice wing which I can’t sire to lose. Hmm…it seems that Adguard and uBlock both have this full-length as well and I may requite them a try. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago I wasn’t implying you did say ABP was the best, but I was referring to how it performed in the article, which is without all what the comments should be about…;) Reply guesty 3 years ago Very nice article, Thanks for posting. Reply Please Inform 3 years ago Please send a link to this page with an towardly introduction to all the sites you have tested so that they realize how wolfish their sites are and can squint at improving things for themselves and their visitors. This applies to your site as well, plane though it’s just 3 seconds without an ad blocker. :) If every site would load in 1 second or so (plus the latency impact), we would all be so much increasingly happier with the web. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago To be perfectly honest, i don’t think a lot of those big sites really superintendency that their pages have huge discrepancies between running with and without ads, most of them are owned by larger parent companies that aren’t really bothered as long as the site pays for itself with a bit of profit spare. TMZ is owned by Time Warner, CNET by CBS Interactive, PC Advisor by IDG etc.There is unchangingly going to be overheads when displaying ads considering files are downloaded from a third party. Our site shows well-nigh 2 seconds or so is probably tropical to the smallest difference you can have between showing and not showing ads.If every site loaded in 1 second many would have no images and all would have no ads, but considering of that, there would be far fewer sites around, including the good ones… Reply Keith 3 years ago Just want to say what a GREAT vendible and useful test data you’ve provided! Haven’t seen this kind of comparison anywhere before! I use Disconnect now and finger it does a very good job with page loading times and the non-tracking/privacy features. Reply Noah Collins 3 years ago Thanks for the comparison! If you run flipside comparison in the future, it would be very helpful to see memory and CPU with no ad blocker. As a control. Inmany cases, these extensions prevent browsers from needing to parse and execute some JavaScript and decode some images. This effect will be worthier on ad-heavy sites. Including the tenancy would reveal the net result of each extension’s performance on each tested site vs an un-blocked experience. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago As discussed previously, getting a tenancy sample of memory and CPU with no ad blocker is difficult considering it’s in not in the ad blocker’s process but spread wideness other processes such as the tab process,Winkprocess and possibly plane the GPU process. All those processes jump virtually in usage by huge amounts so an well-judged reading’s not easy. Reply Charlie Hayes 3 years agoFlipsidefactor worth testing is the number of sites wrenched by the adblock. I tried Ghostery for a while and sooner removed it when I realize it was braking so many sites. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago That is a totally variegated subject altogether….On a side note I’ve used Ghostery over extended periods on several variegated computers and don’t recall it breaking much, if anything. Reply Robert 3 years ago Ghostery breaks a ton, and i have to shut it off a lot to get a website to let me yack in it, or to let me use a form that i need to do some bills etc.. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago That’s considering you’re probably using it with the all on blocking on approach, like many privacy or script blockers they turn off all scripts to start with and you have to let the ones you need through….It’s not “breaking stuff”, it’s blocking what you’re telling it to. Reply Marah Marie 3 years ago It does. Thirded. And same deal…I moreover need to disable it to make many websites usable (with it hiding comments stuff the worst problem by far…not sure why it thinks Facebook comments and Disqus should be obstructed altogether…not sure how third-party scuttlebutt sections wind up counting as “ads”…). Reply HAL9000 3 years ago I think you need to understand how addons like Ghostery work, they woodcut what you tell them to (you turned on widgets during the wizard setup), if you don’t want comments blocked, turn the widgets option off or disable per site… Chubber 3 years ago Thank you for the breakdown, I really fathom it.Withouthaving installed ABP on a host of family computers we saw unceasingly faster load times for nearly every site.One thing you dropped the wittiness on was collecting metrics on the total bytes per page with/without the ads blocked. My Dad lives with a 768kbps DSL line and subtracting ABP caused many pages to load 10 times faster just from the reduction in bytes. When I did some before/after metrics it was typical to reduce the total byte count by a factor of 6-10 times!Expresslyon sites that have turned-on GIFs or audio/video ads that load, plane if they don’t automatically play the audio. Ad blocking is a lifesaver in low bandwidth places! Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Perhaps you misunderstand the test slightly, it’s not really well-nigh testing with an ad blocker and without and then finding the differences, it’s well-nigh each variegated ad blocker and what they do to page load time and how much resources they use in relation to each other.The problems you are talking well-nigh will be cured by just well-nigh any ad blocker, with ads obstructed they all reduce the page load time by roughly the same amount, requite or take a few KB. Reply Robert S 3 years ago Nice to see you back! Reply Awry 3 years ago SilentBlock addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/silentblock/ is one you have not tested. In my wits it is one of the weightier (the best?) in speed and memory footprint.However, you should be worldly-wise to edit the config file if you want to modify its default blocklist. These are regex (Regular Expression) patterns and may frighten off those who are unfamiliar (with regex).Upperease of use for those who know how, and tropical to zero for those who don’t. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago SilentBlock unquestionably blocks nothing out of the box and you have to learn regex or manually download and install pattern lists just to get it to do anything. If we left it at default settings like with all the others, it wouldn’t woodcut a thing and would therefore be pointless to test with… Reply salb4 3 years ago This extension is not exactly a blocker, but a deep cleaner tweaker extension, just take a quick looksee….. hotcleaner.com/clickclean_chrome.html Reply Adnan 3 years ago I am disappointed the Disconnect plugin did not make into the cut. I recommend Disconnect, over Ghostery & uBlock Origin, considering it works out of the box. Ghostery does not woodcut anything by default, and uBlock Origin is moreover a little fiddly if you moreover want to woodcut third party tracking. You need to enable increasingly lists. Not very user friendly. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Disconnect is flipside one of those addons that can woodcut ads considering it’s a unstipulated privacy/script blocking tool. We are not going lanugo the road of including every script/privacy blocker just considering it happens to woodcut ads, there would be dozens of them. These extensions are all ad woodcut first, the rest is an option.Also, Disconnect cannot just woodcut ads vacated without configuring every site manually, and that breaks our rule of not waffly any configuration options. The only exception was Ghostery which forces you to go through the wizard on first run, then we could segregate just ad blocking. If it didn’t do that, Ghostery would not be here either. Reply Carlos E Rivera House 3 years ago 60 Río de Piedras, S. O.thank you Ray, It’s good o have you back! Reply None 3 years ago Thank you for a true run down. I have one question.In using Chrome or Firefox…. should I be running uBlock Origin and Ghostery? or is uBlock Origin on it’s own OK? I can’t icon out if there’s an overlap. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Personally I use both simply considering Ghostery is good at blocking social buttons and widgets but permitting you to enable them temporarily with a click. I only have the social option turned on in Ghostery though.You should probably try one or the other first though to see if it suits your needs, they both woodcut a lot. Reply None 3 years ago Thanks for your response and everyone else! Good Man! Reply KeZa 3 years ago The weightier and the fast that I have here is K9 with ABP. K9 is a parent tenancy but you can moreover trammels that it will woodcut ads. And then in ABP I checked everything out considering if you have the standard filters on, you notice a big difference in speed and that you not have with K9 but I have my own filters and the first is to filter the screen of the dog of K9 out when it filters ads so you do not see anything on the page what you do not want to see. Just add ‘127.0.0.1:2372/blockpage?id’ in a new filter and you are good to go. Reply Serag 3 years ago Hell yea Raymond.cc posts are back!Thanks for the read it was quite interesting, uBlock origin with some uneaten subscriptions is unbearable vacated to gainsay ads, malicious websites and trackers usually, in my opinion. Reply anon2342 3 years ago @author you forgot “PRIVACY BADGER” which is misogynist for both Chrome and Firefox… Reply Raymond 3 years ago Privacy Badger is not an ad blocker, but primarily a privacy tool. Their lawmaking is specifically written to woodcut third party scripts which so happen that ads moreover uses them. Reply Will 3 years ago Privacy Badger would be pretty difficult to test in a controlled way since it has not default filter lists and must be trained by visiting variegated sites and letting it see what third party scripts are stuff loaded wideness variegated domains. Reply tipman deez nuts 3 years ago You can use ghostery in combination with flipside adblocker. Ghostery can woodcut quite a lot increasingly than just adds, and is a very nice privacy tool. Reply Moi 3 years ago The Ghostery suite of tools is interesting – but did you know that it is produced by the telecast visitor Evidon? Seems like a mismatch of interests! Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Ghostery are quite unshut well-nigh how things work, if you enable Ghostrank in the addon the unrecognized statistical information is sent when and then sold to razzmatazz companies so they can “improve” their products. Reply John 3 years ago Which (I believe)e is NOT enabled by default – good on them! Reply smeezekitty 3 years ago This is why I use an adblocker. It’s moreover nice to know some sites exist that aren’t horribly slow and swollen plane with ads enabled Reply HAL9000 3 years ago That is true, there are many sites out there that take things a bit too far and you’re waiting silly amounts of time for a page to load properly, a few in this vendible fall into that category.There are moreover sites that try nonflexible to alimony things sensible and load at reasonable speeds both with or without ads.Sadly when someone uses an ad blocker for everything, they won’t know who deserves to be obstructed and who are worth a consideration for permitting through your blocker. Reply AristoT 3 years ago Thanks for a unconfined article. Whenever I read the word ‘AdBlock’ I mentally translate it into something like ‘NoScript’ (my favourite Firefox plugin). The reason is very simple, if I may point it out: I am strongly in favour of advertisements — hugely in favour. I just don’t like tracking and hypertargeted ads. I want ads for Ferrari and for Whiskey and for H&M just as when I read the paper-version of Financial Times, completely without the ad looking when at me. I want the peace of looking at interesting wares and the pleasant lark of goodlooking ads. And this is a mentality update unfluctuating to advertisements of the digital type which could reflect into the vocabulary we engage for these types of things. Reply sfeinbe 3 years ago Go here: admuncher.com/ and download Ad Muncher, which is self-ruling now. Install it. You now have the weightier ad blocking program you can get. Works in the preliminaries with all browsers, no need to install separate add-on ad blocking applets into each browser you use. Ultra low resource use. When it forfeit money, it was unchangingly rated at the top of the heap. Now it’s free! Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Admuncher has some big problems, one stuff it doesn’t work on HTTPS connections, so Google, YouTube or anything else that uses a secure connection won’t have the ads blocked. It moreover doesn’t support the world’s most used browser, IE11, so it’s not quite true it works with “all” browsers. Reply sfeinbe 3 years ago You’re right well-nigh HTTPS connections and windows only! Forgot well-nigh that. I installed uBlock Origin in Firefox and immediately had ads obstructed that weren’t obstructed before! Thanks for reminding me of those issues! Reply HAL9000 3 years ago AdMuncher isn’t the only desktop using with HTTPS issues, I recently tried the Adguard program and although it is supposed to work with HTTPS, I had several problems with it. Reply wat 3 years ago Only works on Windows. Can’t woodcut anything going through https. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Good point well-nigh Windows only, Chrome/Firefox browser extensions are obviously navigate platform. Reply Naveed 3 years agoUnconfinedarticle, thank you! How does ublock origin deal with Facebook, Google and other trackers? Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Why don’t you try it and see…?µBlock Origin with increasingly lists enabled or inWidemode allows you to woodcut all sorts of things. Reply Eric 3 years ago Glad I use uBlock! I was tired of the upper memory usage from the others I tried.It would have been nice to see what the memory and cpu usage was with no adblocker, just to see what the baseline is.But clearly, for a largest internet experience, adblockers are a must. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Obviously in Chrome a baseline without an ad blocker running would be a variegated process and as mentioned below, that process does jump virtually by a lot so good readings are difficult. If I had the time I could have produced numbers galore such as what the tab process CPU and memory is while running etc.In the end we had to yank the line somewhere or it would have been just a mistiness of numbers and the vendible would never have got out…:) Reply gorhill 3 years ago Good job on the benchmarks. Having gone through a lot of benchmarks myself, I fathom the value of work put into this.I would just like to add a side note regarding the memory usage in uBlock Origin. Memory usage-wise, the largest goody of using uBlock is the significantly lower unsalaried memory to web pages, i.e. the value of uneaten memory a blocker will rationalization web pages themselves to slosh — something not directly covered in the vendible (not a complaint, I realize this would have widow a whole lot increasingly work to track memory usage for every tested web page/blocker, having to wait for garbage collection, etc.)This is where uBlock is sharply superiority of some other popular blockers, considering uBlock Origin does not inject a giant list of CSS rules (10,000+) in every page and every embedded frame on a page, unlike Adblock Plus (and AdBlock, Adguard, last time I checked). I have some benchmarks regarding contributed-memory-to-web-pages which imbricate this speciality in uBlock Origin, and in some cases the uneaten unsalaried memory to web pages by ABP over uBlock was north of 100 MB for a single web page (see github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared#ublock-vs-adblock-memory-usage-differential-during-reference-benchmark , the orange part of the graph)The contributed-memory-to-web-pages issue for Adblock Plus (and other blockers which work the same way) will be mitigated in Firefox 41, but not for Chromium-based browsers. Reply HAL9000 3 years ago Thanks for your reply and input gorhill, the vendible has only been out a few hours and one of the developers has found us already!I did have a read well-nigh and squint into the memory usage of the page process itself, but as you say, the memory usage for that is moving all the time and it’s difficult to get well-judged readings, expressly the specimen with many pages where the content never really finishes loading. Reply Marah Marie 3 years ago Thank you for this comment. As a Firefox user well on 10 years now I’ve used ABP all along, plane without they begn whitelisting (after which I transiently left forWhetbut came when considering of something I did not like). I read the benchmarks and results here expecting ABP to win hands lanugo only to see uBlock take that prize, so now I’m considering switching, but the CSS rules are exactly what keeps me stuck on ABP, since the adblocked web can squint pretty bad without the compensatory CSS. I want to ask “does uBlock have any similar CSS at all?” but by the time anyone answers I’ll have installed uBlock at least transiently to try to icon that out for myself. ReplyLeave a Reply Cancel replyYour email write will not be published. Required fields are marked *Note: Your scuttlebutt is subject to approval. Read our Terms of Use. If you are seeking spare information on this article, please ask in our forum or contact us directly.NameEmail Search Raymond.cc Follow us on Google+ Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Subscribe to YouTube Subscribe to RSS by Email Recently Updated 7Self-rulingTools toWaitPrograms Starting With Windows 7Self-rulingWays to Hide a File or Message InsideFlipsideFile 6Self-rulingTools to Enable Tabs in Windows Explorer NewWaresHow To Disable AVG Zen And Uninstall Avira Connect Launcher 7 Chromium Based Browsers WithUneatenFeatures 5Self-rulingAutomaticSkiverSwitches for Unexpected VPN Disconnection Popular Posts 10Self-rulingSoftware to Mount ISO Image Files as Virtual Drives Top 10 Sites to Receive SMS Online without a Phone Top 10 BestSelf-rulingKeylogger Software to Monitor Keystrokes in WindowsSuggested Reading3 Desktop Tools ToWoodcutAdverts in Web Browsers and ApplicationsHowConstructiveis Blocking Websites using HOSTS file?5 DNS Services toWoodcutPorn Sites without Installing SoftwareIdentify andStaveClicking Fake Download Buttons at File Hosting Sites3 Browser Extensions to Save What You Type into Online Forms and Text Boxes (c) 2017 Raymond.CC BlogDisclaimerDisclosurePrivacy PolicyTerms of UseSitemap