Battle Firefox vs. Brave vs. Vivaldi

Which browser—Firefox, Brave, or Vivaldi—is your favorite?

  • Firefox

    Votes: 38 45.2%
  • Brave

    Votes: 35 41.7%
  • Vivaldi

    Votes: 11 13.1%

  • Total voters
    84
Compare list
Firefox vs. Brave vs. Vivaldi
Platform(s)
  1. Any platform
On my end, the first test with Brave was 14.9 then 2nd test 14.4 (Brave set to aggressively block). With FF, it was like watching things load in slow motion 9.92 (uBlock Origin, browser privacy/standard). Maybe a settings issue? Chrome was 26.3 (uBOL 201 blocks) And I've seen some incredibly better scores in other threads, but as for me and my device and its settings, I'll stick with Brave (and for my Google stuff, Chrome) :)

edit:sp
 
Last edited:
@Jonny Quest
With me on Linux Chrome runs at 19.3 Brave at 18.8 and Firefox 9,9 normally Chrome is a bit faster than Chrome browsers offering extra functionality. It is also normal for Firefox to be slower (uBol is also a lot faster than uBo, so that does not help either). When Gorhill was attended to this difference his response was nonsense, but after afterwards I noticed uBol was blocking stuff during the tests.
 
@Jonny Quest
With me on Linux Chrome runs at 19.3 Brave at 18.8 and Firefox 9,9 normally Chrome is a bit faster than Chrome browsers offering extra functionality. It is also normal for Firefox to be slower (uBol is also a lot faster than uBo, so that does not help either). When Gorhill was attended to this difference his response was nonsense, but after afterwards I noticed uBol was blocking stuff during the tests.
Testing should be performed without any extensions to determine the baseline related to the browser itself, not to the impact by extensions.
 
I've been using Vivaldi and Brave browsers for a few days, and now I feel like Firefox is crawling. Has this always been the case?
It's not just you. Chromium has total benchmark superiority over Firefox. Every component of Chromium performs dramatically better in synthetic benchmarks, which doesn't necessarily reflect day-to-day browsing but still tells you something.

Chrome is even more fine-tuned for benchmark performance than Chromium forks. Brave is efficient, but it also implements numerous privacy-focused changes to Chromium without too much focus on maximizing raw performance.

Blink performs dramatically better than Gecko. For JavaScript, V8 performs dramatically better than SpiderMonkey. Chromium's architecture places a lot of emphasis on isolation and a multi-process design that gives better parallel optimizations. Also, Chromium's hardware acceleration is dramatically better: Skia/Graphite GPU rasterization is more mature and optimized for modern GPUs than Firefox's WebRender.
 
Testing should be performed without any extensions to determine the baseline related to the browser itself, not to the impact by extensions.
I agree, I had half heartedly done it in my previous test, but left things as I mentioned there.
Now, in disabling the WARP app, F-Secure Browser protection and the extension, and clearing all history....

With Brave set on "Block trackers and ads" (not aggressively) it was 10.8
With Brave Shields totally disabled, it was 11.2 (I had cleared history again).

With FF having disabled uBlock, I went and made some coffee and had a sandwich 😅 was 8.07

So needless to say, I will keep the Trinity enabled (not the Matrix girl), for better results.
 
Last edited:
I agree, I had half heartedly done it in my previous test, but left things as I mentioned there.
Now, in disabling the WARP app, F-Secure Browser protection and the extension, and clearing all history....

With Brave set on "Block trackers and ads" (not aggressively) it was 10.8
With Brave Shields totally disabled, it was 11.2 (I had cleared history again).

With FF having disabled uBlock, I went and made some coffee and had a sandwich 😅 was 8.07

So needless to say, I will keep the Trinity (not the Matrix girl) enabled, for better results.
According to your results, I conclude two things:
1- The impact of Brave adblocker is very small on performance (it is logic to be smaller than that of extensions)
2- Firefox is noticeably slower
 
According to your results, I conclude two things:
1- The impact of Brave adblocker is very small on performance (it is logic to be smaller than that of extensions)
2- Firefox is noticeably slower
With aggressively block, Brave was better. And with FF, it is noticeably slower. Even though as @Miravi mentioned may not be an issue for most, who maybe don't try a different browser to see a difference, like @lokamoka820 did?
 
Testing should be performed without any extensions to determine the baseline related to the browser itself, not to the impact by extensions.
I believe this is true if you want to compare browsers in general, but as end users, we need the results to be based on how we use them. For instance, I don't use translator for Vivaldi or ad blocker for Brave because their built-in features are adequate, so I need to get the results while these extensions are installed.
 
I believe this is true if you want to compare browsers in general, but as end users, we need the results to be based on how we use them. For instance, I don't use translator for Vivaldi or ad blocker for Brave because their built-in features are adequate, so I need to get the results while these extensions are installed.
That was my thought originally too, to test it with what I have enabled and why I have those enabled. But, I did like @Parkinsond idea, just to compare the differences :)
 
That was my thought originally too, to test it with what I have enabled and why I have those enabled. But, I did like @Parkinsond idea, just to compare the differences :)
Test can be performed twice, one time with no extensions (and internal adblocker turned off), the second with extensions and adblocker on.
The first one will tell how good is the browser performance, while the second one will show the final performance in real-life with extensions (adblocker) on.