Advice Request AdGuard for Windows vs uBo

Web Extensions
34 Replies 7,894 Views
Share practical recommendations that address the author's needs.

AdGuard for Windows vs uBlock Origin

  • AdGuard for Windows

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • uBlock Origin

    Votes: 16 61.5%
  • Total voters
    26
n8chavez

n8chavez

Level 26
Verified
Well-known
Forum Veteran
I understand there are fundamental differences between the two, AG can filter any app on the system whereas uBo can only function in a browser. However, beyond that, uBo seems more poweerful to me simply because it has an advanced mode that can block site connections and AdGuard for Windows does not. That being the case, wouldn't uBo be preferable, since it offers unmatched granularity? Or is there something I'm missing? I'm trying to determine which I should run.
 
Really depends.

This kind of sites, users tend to go for options like uBlock because it allows more tweaking.

However at some point people can get tired of that and might with the option that is more set and forget.

since it offers unmatched granularity?
Click to expand...

While this is viewed as something good. What some people should be asking is “is this necessary for me?”

if you believe it is, then go with uBlock
 
I currently use AdGuard as I jumped on a lifetime multi device license with them. Mostly because a system wide blocker for my cellphone. Otherwise, UBlock Origin would be my other option for sure. :)
 
DJ Panda said:
I currently use AdGuard as I jumped on a lifetime multi device license with them. Mostly because a system wide blocker for my cellphone. Otherwise, UBlock Origin would be my other option for sure. :)
Click to expand...

I am in the exact situation. I bought a lifetime license from stacksocial, one for PC and the other for my phone. But I've since replaced it with uBo on my PC and am using nextdns on my android. I like AdGuard, but to me uBo + NextDNS just seems better, given uBo's advanced mode.
 
I prefer the simplicity of AdGuard for Windows ~ no more setting extension rules for multiple browsers, worrying about Manifest v3 and it can act as a DNS client if you don't want to change system-wide settings too. I've never found anything that I need an adblocker to do that AdGuard can't but perhaps I'm less fussy than others on that score?
 
Another valid point worth to mention: HTTPS filtering by Adguard for Windows.

What is HTTPS filtering | AdGuard Knowledge Base

What is HTTPS?
kb.adguard.com kb.adguard.com

uBlock Origin or other adblocker browser extensions/addons haven't this kind of disadvantage, although may doesn't work anymore same way in new Manifest 3, but there are still options to use DNS for this purpose like Adguard DNS or more advanced service NextDNS.
 
A major downside for me is speed. Adguard for Windows is slower and more CPU hungry than uBO/Adgaurd Browser extension.
n8chavez said:
simply because it has an advanced mode that can block site connections and AdGuard for Windows does not.
Click to expand...
You can also configure Adguard for Windows to block any site you wish even though it doesn't have that advanced mode UI of uBO.
 
n8chavez said:
Yeah. I thought maybe I was missing an AG advanced mode, but I don't see anything like that.
Click to expand...
I presume, you mean the possibility to block 3p content (creating dynamic rules) in medium - or in hard mode. I'm not a fan of such rules, but it's quite simple to create similar user rules in Adguard like:
||*^$third-party (hard mode)
||*^$script,third-party
||*^$subdocument,third-party
or
||*^$script,subdocument,third-party (medium mode)
 
Interesting. I did not expect that high of a pro-adguard percentage. From what I can gleam, the argument here being that uBo's advanced mode is not really advantageous because it's a PitA since there's no gui-driven options. I suppose DNS filtering can block domains, so there's no need. Is anyone concerned at all with manifest v3? That *might* necessitate the need for non browser-based filtering. Which filter lists do you guys use?
 
Last edited:
Jan Willy said:
I presume, you mean the possibility to block 3p content (creating dynamic rules) in medium - or in hard mode. I'm not a fan of such rules, but it's quite simple to create similar user rules in Adguard like:
||*^$third-party (hard mode)
||*^$script,third-party
||*^$subdocument,third-party
or
||*^$script,subdocument,third-party (medium mode)
Click to expand...

Why don't you like rule-based blocking?
 
Freki123 said:
It's an option that you can use or not. I don't see an option as an disadvantage.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I wrote "kind of disadvantage" so easier to understand as no real fact ;)
My intention was nothing like to bash Adguard. Honestly, long time ago, I have been purchased a lifetime of Adguard (3 devices) but prefer using on mobile only these days.
 

Recently browsing

Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes

You may also like...

Continue exploring the conversation.

Back
Top