Battle Kaspersky Anti-Banner or Adblock Plus?

[legendcampos]

The kaspersky after installation includes several browser add-ons and one of them is the Anti-Banner.

The question is: I have Adblock Plus add-on installed, I keep it or disable it? Which one has the best performance?

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

You can use both, it won't be a hit on performance, but Kaspersky AntiBanner is lighter for me.

 

[dowN1]

I'm using them both, too. Can't remember when was the last time I saw an ad

And don't worry about performance, you won't even notice that you have these two on.

 

[legendcampos]

I believe the blacklist Advertising Adblock is greater, i can be mistaken.

 

[RƎDSPYGENTLEMEN]

I've actually stopped using antibanner after it has been less reliable and used Ghostery + Adblock.

 

[thepierrezou]

If you seach performance don't use adblock please
If you want an extension with good performance go for µblock, httpsb or ghostery
Try just kaspersky anti banner and if it's enough just use anti banner without extension

 

[Ink]

I haven't used Kaspersky's Anti-Banned, but I can suggest µBlock or AdBlock are better alternates to AdBlock Plus. And I've tried both AdBlock and µBlock and found both memory usage to be identical, however µBlock claims to block more content.

Check out µBlock efficiency compared to ABP: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared

Another thread about µBlock on LifeHacker: http://lifehacker.com/ublock-is-a-fast-and-lightweight-alternative-to-adblock-1625246461

 

[dowN1]

If you want an extension with good performance go for µblock, httpsb or ghostery

but µblock isn't available for firefox?

 

[legendcampos]

I haven't used Kaspersky's Anti-Banned, but I can suggest µBlock or AdBlock are better alternates to AdBlock Plus. And I've tried both AdBlock and µBlock and found both memory usage to be identical, however µBlock claims to block more content.

Check out µBlock efficiency compared to ABP: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared

Another thread about µBlock on LifeHacker: http://lifehacker.com/ublock-is-a-fast-and-lightweight-alternative-to-adblock-1625246461

Looks good, but i have firefox µBlock not is compatible.

 

[Striker]

I would remove abp and disable kasperskys antibanner and would add : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bluhell-firewall/

Maybe its worth for u to try it

 

[thepierrezou]

but µblock isn't available for firefox?

µblock isn't available for firefox then use ghostery

 

[Cowpipe]

I would remove abp and disable kasperskys antibanner and would add : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bluhell-firewall/

Maybe its worth for u to try it

Was literally just about to post that "try Bluhell Firewall" lol. I can't recommend it fully however as it lacks that most important of features which is a per site whitelist. Switch blocking off and it turns off not only for the current site but everywhere

 

[legendcampos]

I would remove abp and disable kasperskys antibanner and would add : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bluhell-firewall/

Maybe its worth for u to try it

There are conflict with the firewall in kaspersky?

 

[Cowpipe]

µblock isn't available for firefox then use ghostery

Ghostery is also a memory hog like Adblock Plus unfortunately

@legendcampos ~ Bluhell Firewall is just the name, it's just an adblocker, not an actual firewall so there should be no conflict

 

[thepierrezou]

Ghostery is also a memory hog like Adblock Plus unfortunately

@legendcampos ~ Bluhell Firewall is just the name, it's just an adblocker, not an actual firewall so there should be no conflict

Oo the chrome version use 30 mo of RAM then i thought the firefox version is good :/

 

[Cowpipe]

Oo the chrome version use 30 mo of RAM then i thought the firefox version is good :/

Might be different on your computer, but in my experience it uses quite a bit of RAM which slows the browser down. Certainly more than say uBlock (on chrome) which can replicate the functionality with the EasyPrivacy list.

 

[legendcampos]

Bluhell Firewall is just the name, it's just an adblocker, not an actual firewall so there should be no conflict

I liked him, I will test for a while, is reduced memory consumption firefox.

About the Anti-Banner was unable disable it in the browser, even in the progam.

Adblock is stronger your list blocked, also the memory consumption high.

 

[tucfawa]

And I've tried both AdBlock and µBlock and found both memory usage to be identical, however µBlock claims to block more content.

I can't make sense of this.

In all the tests, without exception, AdBlock systematically consumes way more memory than uBlock, and also almost twice than Adblock Plus. There is just no comparison.

I just did a screenshot of both, AdBlock with EasyList, EasyPrivacy, and uBlock with EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's + all Fanboy's lists (Social, annoyances, enhanced, etc.) and all hosts file-based lists, and here is what I got after forcing garbage collection after both extensions were launched:

And the difference get worst quick when you start to browse web pages.

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

AdGuard even lighter.

 

[tucfawa]

AdGuard even lighter.

No it's not. I am at a lost to understand why people are so eager to propagate myths rather than just stick to describing reality.

Here, I ensured I am comparing apples with apples, i.e. SAME LISTS, and I forced garbage collection on both extensions:

Settings:


And Adguard tags you with a unique id, and track your browsing history if you enable "Malware, phising protection". They changed their code to make it less obvious (no longer logged in console), but it's still all there, it can be seen from the dev network tab.

Edit: after I posted I realized I had forgotten to uncheck "Activate the most appropriate filters automatically", so I did this, restarted the browser, and now I can't get better than this for Adguard, even after forcing garbage collection:

So for you to obtain the memory footprint shown in your thumbnail I strongly suspect it's because the setting "Activate the most appropriate filters automatically" delays the loading of filters until Adguard has identified which filters are relevant to the user given what web pages they browse (language, or something). No too long after I posted, I received a notification from Adguard telling me it has selected the English filters, implying they were not parsed/enforced when I took my original screenshot. Now they seems parsed and enforced even if I deselected them.