Battle Chrome vs. Firefox vs. Edge in 2026 — Which Browser Should Home Users Trust?

[Parkinsond]

yeah gone are the days when this would happen

If they are equally fast (all chromium engine), Chrome would not get >70% market share, even with extensive advertisement.

 

[Khushal]

If they are equally fast (all chromium engine), Chrome would not get >70% market share, even with extensive advertisement.

edge is pretty fast i think only reason chrome has that percentage share is bcoz ur average computer person believes their favourite search engine works best on chrome something which google advertises as well. And then the fact that they are the original chromium and first in the market certainly helps

 

[Parkinsond]

edge is pretty fast i think only reason chrome has that percentage share is bcoz ur average computer person believes their favourite search engine works best on chrome something which google advertises as well. And then the fact that they are the original chromium and first in the market certainly helps

Chrome and Edge are the most reliable, for me; however, I am not using neither.

 

[LinuxFan58]

Why do you (Sampei Nihira) think Chrome should be faster than Brave? All Chromium browsers have same speed because they all use the same rendering engine.

It's like comparing green and red apples; they are apples just with different taste and skin. Exactly like Chromium browsers.

Chrome build-in adblocker is build with C++, the Brave adblocker with rust, Rust is safer than C++ because it has memory integrity (but that benefit comes with overhead), so Brave with Shields disabled scores lower than uBol with simular filterlists in Speedometer 3.1.

Also the extra functionality (of Brave and Vivaldi) results in more lines of code, which could have impact on lines of code executed. So I agree with you that they use the same engines/components, but the Chromium clones all have extra functionality to lure users away from Chrome which makes them a little slower than Chrom (so also agree with Sampei-san). In real world you probably won't notice the difference, but in syntetic test there might be differences in performance.

 

[Parkinsond]

Chrome build-in adblocker is build with C++

Does Chrome has a built-in adblocker?

In real world you probably won't notice the difference

It is noticeable, depending on how bad is the code and how intensive is the website.

 

[ForgottenSeer 116559]

Chrome build-in adblocker is build with C++, the Brave adblocker with rust, Rust is safer than C++ because it has memory integrity (but that benefit comes with overhead), so Brave with Shields disabled scores lower than uBol with simular filterlists in Speedometer 3.1.

Also the extra functionality (of Brave and Vivaldi) results in more lines of code, which could have impact on lines of code executed. So I agree with you that they use the same engines/components, but the Chromium clones all have extra functionality to lure users away from Chrome which makes them a little slower than Chrom (so also agree with Sampei-san). In real world you probably won't notice the difference, but in syntetic test there might be differences in performance.

Chrome doesn't come with a full-fledged adblocker—it only optionally blocks a small variety of intrusive ads. You can't directly compare it to adblockers processing comprehensive filtering lists.

Rust's memory safety doesn't incur material runtime overhead because it's enforced at compile time. Sometimes this can even enhance performance. Brave's adblocker was originally written in C++, but the Rust replacement they wrote was significantly faster from the start.

While C++ and Rust often perform comparably these days—with C++ retaining some advantages—there are cases where Rust is a clear winner: PNG decoding, where Rust-based memory-safe decoders “vastly outperformed” libraries for C thanks to efficient concurrency and safer memory handling.

Admittedly, Brave is a little slower at synthetic benchmarks, and it's not purely attributable to the highly efficient adblocker. Brave implements numerous surgical changes to Chromium beyond the multiple privacy features in Shields. There are extra features (like LeoAI) also introducing tiny inefficiencies. Brave focuses primarily on privacy and real-world efficiency (less CPU, RAM, and battery) over raw performance.

 

[LinuxFan58]

Brave with Shields disabled scores lower than uBol with simular filterlists in Speedometer 3.1.

Was worded strange, should be: Brave with Shields enabled scores lower on Speedometer 3.1 than Brave with shields disable and uBol extension using simular filterlists (I was not refering to Chrome's adblocker, but uBol using Chrome build in DNR filtering capabilities).

I thought RUST also had run time memory exception checks and additional overhead releasing/garbage cleaning, but AI told me (like you) otherwise
The improvement of Brave's adblocker in Rust over C++ was also because of the way they stored/applied filtering rules (at least that is what I had read)

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

OK... for the theory.
But is there really no one who wants to test Speedometer 3.1 with these two browsers, possibly under the same extension conditions?

 

[Marko :)]

Actually, they are not.
Not due to difference in engine, but how good is the program code on top of the engine.
For example, Vivaldi is almost equal to Chrome for browsing, but when dealing with YT videos, or even menu animations in Whatsapp web, it has problems of stutter and more than average cpu usage.

I could not find the ideal chromium broswer; each one has ist pros and cons; I just select the one which pros are mandatory for me, and which cons can be lived with.

This is exactly why I said it's like comparing apples. Red apple is Brave; it has different design from Chrome, and taste would be additional features like ad blocker. Green apple would be Chrome; vanilla everything + Google's own code for their services. Rendering engine should technically work the same and be equally fast if Brave devs didn't mess something up.

Have you tried Helium Browser? It's supposed to be Brave without crypto bullsh!t. It's still in alpha though.

I believe that the greater slowdown is due to the added code compared to Chrome.
And probably to the internal adblock feature.
When it will be possible to disable this feature,
@LinuxFan58 wrote at the end of January 2026, perhaps the comparison will be fairer.

But maybe I'm wrong, theory is often different from practice, regarding the test, which is always a test and like any test has limitations.

Brave is faster if you enable Brave Shields because it blocks ads and rejects ad requests so websites load faster. If you disable Shields, speed should be equal to Chrome. Firefox works the fastest for me though, probably because of great hardware.

yeah gone are the days when this would happen

This exact moment is what killed EdgeHTML. Microsoft simply couldn't compete with Chrome so they eventually caved in to Chromium. Man, this was so embarrassing for Microsoft; they couldn't get their own web app to work in their own web browser.

If they are equally fast (all chromium engine), Chrome would not get >70% market share, even with extensive advertisement.

The only reason why Chrome is the most used web browser is because it was first to offer fast web browsing experience. I don't know how young you are, but us born in the 90s, we still remember how sh!t web browsers were back then.
You had the slowest Internet Explorer, Firefox that would always freeze when encountered complex JavaScript and/or Flash object, Opera that was fast but didn't render websites correctly and Safari which no one actually used because it was plain terrible. So when Chrome came with new rendering engine that did wonders, pretty much everyone switched to it and stayed because of the speed. Plus, it was advertised on the most visited website on Earth and bundled with all kinds of software. And it simply stayed that way. No need to change browser when majority got used to Chrome and use Google's services on daily basis.

Speed doesn't have anything to do with it today, pure satisfaction and familiarity with the product. This is also the reason why Windows Phone failed; Android i iOS were the first and no one wanted to switch because people were satisfied Android and got familiar with it. Barely anyone uses Signal because WhatsApp was first so people don't see a reason to change.

Early bird catches the worm.

edge is pretty fast i think only reason chrome has that percentage share is bcoz ur average computer person believes their favourite search engine works best on chrome something which google advertises as well. And then the fact that they are the original chromium and first in the market certainly helps

Let's be real; what's the first thing you do after installing Windows? Downloading a favorite web browser. There was a real need to that in the 00s and 10s, and the habit stayed with 95% of people.

Does Chrome has a built-in adblocker?

It is noticeable, depending on how bad is the code and how intensive is the website.

Yes, it does. Not the ad blocker you know and love, but the most basic one which blocks annoying pop-up ads; rest gets to pass.

OK... for the theory.
But is there really no one who wants to test Speedometer 3.1 with these two browsers, possibly under the same extension conditions?

Why does Speedometer matters to you, again?

 

[Parkinsond]

Have you tried Helium Browser? It's supposed to be Brave without crypto bullsh!t. It's still in alpha though.

I have created a post before about Helium for those who like to try, but I have never tried before.

For browsers, I prefer those by a rich sponsor for maitenance purpose, regardless of how mean is the sponsor.
In addition, I do not feel nice for the "bangs" thing.

The only reason why Chrome is the most used web browser is because it was first to offer fast web browsing experience

I perfer to use "reliable" than fast or effcient; every user defines "efficiency" according to its own needs.
Average and subaverage users incline to reliable browser; they cannot deal with crashes and bugs.
I consider myself supra-average user (not yet advanced) which lets me try some other browser outside the "reliable" categrory.

Speed doesn't have anything to do with it today

Only Vivaldi and Mullvad dns gave me the feeling of low speed on few instances.

Yes, it does. Not the ad blocker you know and love, but the most basic one which blocks annoying pop-up ads; rest gets to pass.

It's completely useless, not to be considered existent.
Yandex has a similar one.

I don't know how young you are

I'm 51; I have used all the major browsers (starting with IE and Netscape) and most of the minor ones including rarely used, such as Ecosia and Ulaa.

 

[Marko :)]

In addition, I do not feel nice for the "bangs" thing.

Why? I use @ in Firefox all the time, especially useful for asking stuff AI.

Only Vivaldi and Mullvad dns gave me the feeling of low speed on few instances.

Vivaldi is garbage. Yes, I said it.

Mullvad DNS I never had desire to try after pinging their DoH domain. 150ms ping and above from here. Just terrible.

It's completely useless, not to be considered existent.
Yandex has a similar one.
View attachment 294111

It actually did block some ads when I used Chrome back in the day, but these were on piracy sites with those annoying pop-ups and fake download buttons.

 

[LinuxFan58]

@Marko :) What Leo (Brave's AI) says about Speedometer 3.1

 

[Marko :)]

@Marko :) What Leo (Brave's AI) says about Speedometer 3.1

View attachment 294113

To us users it's relevant as landline is these days. This test exists purely for browser devs to test their product and to see in which areas they could improve. I get lower score on Firefox, but Firefox actually loads websites faster on my laptop.

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

I have created a post before about Helium for those who like to try, but I have never tried before.

For browsers, I prefer those by a rich sponsor for maitenance purpose, regardless of how mean is the sponsor.
In addition, I do not feel nice for the "bangs" thing.

I perfer to use "reliable" than fast or effcient; every user defines "efficiency" according to its own needs.
Average and subaverage users incline to reliable browser; they cannot deal with crashes and bugs.
I consider myself supra-average user (not yet advanced) which lets me try some other browser outside the "reliable" categrory.

Only Vivaldi and Mullvad dns gave me the feeling of low speed on few instances.

It's completely useless, not to be considered existent.
Yandex has a similar one.
View attachment 294111

I'm 51; I have used all the major browsers (starting with IE and Netscape) and most of the minor ones including rarely used, such as Ecosia and Ulaa.

I'll just answer the last question.
It's simple, it gives me a “basis” of interest.

Never mind if no one has these two browsers installed.

 

[Parkinsond]

Vivaldi is garbage

Not entirely; provides some extra nice features such as loca; calendar and notes (I do not prefer online synchronized ones).

It actually did block some ads when I used Chrome back in the day, but these were on piracy sites with those annoying pop-ups and fake download buttons.

Not to be compared with uBO, uBOL, AG, ABP, or even Ghostery.

 

[LinuxFan58]

To us users it's relevant as landline is these days. This test exists purely for browser devs to test their product and to see in which areas they could improve. I get lower score on Firefox, but Firefox actually loads websites faster on my laptop.

But dev's improve their applications for a better user experience

Okay you may have an extra ordinary laptop. because Chrome beats Firefox in most performance tests, I am not questioning or doubting your experience

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

To us users it's relevant as landline is these days. This test exists purely for browser devs to test their product and to see in which areas they could improve. I get lower score on Firefox, but Firefox actually loads websites faster on my laptop.

This could be due to your specific conditions.
Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule.
In my case, Firefox is slower than Chrome in both "DOMContentLoaded" and the Speedometer 3.1 test.

 

[Marko :)]

Not entirely; provides some extra nice features such as loca; calendar and notes (I do not prefer online synchronized ones).

Not to be compared with uBO, uBOL, AG, ABP, or even Ghostery.

You can get better apps than those bundled with Vivaldi. Just sayin'...

But dev's improve their applications for a better user experience

They do, but browsers constantly score the same on this test. It rarely changes.

This could be due to your specific conditions.
Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule.
In my case, Firefox is slower than Chrome in both "DOMContentLoaded" and the Speedometer 3.1 test.

Yeah, I know. And the weird thing is I can't figure out why Firefox runs faster on my laptop. Like... I haven't done any major modifications to it. Just running ETP on Strict with uBlock Origin installed and ad blocking DNS; that's all. Maybe it's the hardware (Lenovo Legion Pro 5 16ARX8)?

This is my user.js file (or changes I did in about:config):

// Compact mode
user_pref("browser.compactmode.show", true);

// Firefox Translate
user_pref("browser.translations.enable", false);

// ETP exclusions
user_pref("urlclassifier.trackingSkipURLs", "https://www.facebook.com/*,https://*.fbcdn.net/*,https://www.instagram.com/*,https://platform.twitter.com/*,https://*.twimg.com/*,https://www.tiktok.com/embed*,https://c.brid.tv/*,https://*.reddit.com/*,https://*.vk.com/*");
user_pref("urlclassifier.features.socialtracking.skipURLs", "https://www.facebook.com/*,https://*.fbcdn.net/*,https://www.instagram.com/*,https://platform.twitter.com/*,https://*.twimg.com/*");

// Less writing on SSD
user_pref("browser.sessionstore.interval", "1800000");

// Minimum video lenght for PiP button
user_pref("media.videocontrols.picture-in-picture.video-toggle.min-video-secs", "5");

// Line wrap for View Source
user_pref("view_source.wrap_long_lines", true);

 

[Sampei.Nihira]

You can get better apps than those bundled with Vivaldi. Just sayin'...

They do, but browsers constantly score the same on this test. It rarely changes.

Yeah, I know. And the weird thing is I can't figure out why Firefox runs faster on my laptop. Like... I haven't done any major modifications to it. Just running ETP on Strict with uBlock Origin installed and ad blocking DNS; that's all. Maybe it's the hardware (Lenovo Legion Pro 5 16ARX8)?

This is my user.js file (or changes I did in about:config):

// Compact mode
user_pref("browser.compactmode.show", true);

// Firefox Translate
user_pref("browser.translations.enable", false);

// ETP exclusions
user_pref("urlclassifier.trackingSkipURLs", "https://www.facebook.com/*,https://*.fbcdn.net/*,https://www.instagram.com/*,https://platform.twitter.com/*,https://*.twimg.com/*,https://www.tiktok.com/embed*,https://c.brid.tv/*,https://*.reddit.com/*,https://*.vk.com/*");
user_pref("urlclassifier.features.socialtracking.skipURLs", "https://www.facebook.com/*,https://*.fbcdn.net/*,https://www.instagram.com/*,https://platform.twitter.com/*,https://*.twimg.com/*");

// Less writing on SSD
user_pref("browser.sessionstore.interval", "1800000");

// Minimum video lenght for PiP button
user_pref("media.videocontrols.picture-in-picture.video-toggle.min-video-secs", "5");

// Line wrap for View Source
user_pref("view_source.wrap_long_lines", true);

Maybe.
I have many more changes than you in Firefox (I also used some of the FastFox settings), but Chrome is always faster.
To get almost the same score, I would have to disable JIT optimization in Chrome and leave optimization enabled (as it is by default) in Firefox.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

You can get better apps than those bundled with Vivaldi. Just sayin'

Exactly I prefer apps that sync to my own cloud.

For note i use Joplin
For mail I use Thunderbird