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]

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:
View attachment 18830

Settings:
View attachment 18831 View attachment 18832

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 (lo longer logged in console), but it's still all there, it can be seen from the dev network tab.

Adguard is much lighter with the native filters than with the easy list ones. If I have both Easylist and native filters on plus Malware blocking and submit info, it can peak high above 115MB, if only EasyList on, around 60 MB, and if nothing but English filter on, as low as 20 MB.

 

[tucfawa]

Adguard is much lighter with the native filters than with the easy list ones. If I have both Easylist and native filters on plus Malware blocking and submit info, it can peak high above 115MB, if only EasyList on, around 60 MB, and if nothing but English filter on, as low as 20 MB.

Adguard filters are based on EasyList ones: "Originally based on the EasyList filter" (source).

Adguard's modified EasyList is 1.5MB, the real current EasyList is 1.4MB.

When I try Adguard with only "English filters" and uBlock with only EasyList, Adguard's memory footprint is still largely above uBlock, 45MB vs 36MB on Google Chrome 64-bit. On 32-bit both will report lower figures. So that it is more efficient that uBlock is just yet another myth, just like that other one that AdBlock is more efficient than ABP, etc. It's fun to stick to reality, more people should try it.

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

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:
View attachment 18830

Settings:
View attachment 18831 View attachment 18832

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:

View attachment 18835

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.

It's lighter on my machine.
Bty - the figures on my task manager are no myth.
Default settings - AdGuard IS LIGHTER!
Just found the ignore button.

 

[tucfawa]

It's lighter on my machine.
Bty - the figures on my task manager are no myth.
Default settings - AdGuard IS LIGHTER!
Just found the ignore button.

Post the exact steps you used like I did. Let's see if people will reproduce your results using these steps. Admittedly, it take some guts to post these steps, as the risk is to be found to have made basic mistakes in the methodology.

 

[Ink]

I can't make sense of this.

View attachment 18821

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

Different PC, different consumption levels. Both AdBlock and uBlock on default settings. No customizations or tweaks.

AdBlock = 56,000 K
uBlock = 70,000 K

As I said they were identical last time I tried, today's results are little different. I'm a long time user of AdBlock and I'm not prepared to switch to an extension that claims to be lighter or faster.

 

[tucfawa]

Different PC, different consumption levels. Both AdBlock and uBlock on default settings. No customizations or tweaks.

AdBlock = 56,000 K
uBlock = 70,000 K

View attachment 18858

As I said they were identical last time I tried, today's results are little different. I'm a long time user of AdBlock and I'm not prepared to switch to an extension that claims to be lighter or faster.

You didn't wait for garbage collector to kick in for uBlock, while you did for AdBlock. Wait a minute with browser on idle after extensions launch to have meaningful results. You will never get that kind of results if you are cautious with your measurements. Anybody can repeat and if they will never get your results with intellectually honest measurements.

EDIT: Actually I need to correct myself. Given the process ids in your screenshot, I can see that AdBlock was loaded very recently (no tab have a larger process id), while uBlock, given its process id, has been running for a while. On top of that, given uBlock memory footprint, it is as if you forced a reload of all the lists without waiting for garbage collection. That kind of memory footprint is just not possible (I didn't try selecting all available lists though, but I have many more than the default ones enabled and nowhere near that figures in Chrome 64-bit -- so that makes no sense).

I don't care whether you switch or not, that's completely beside the point, my whole point are intellectual honesty and to describe reality as accurately as possible to counter fanboyism which helps nobody.

 

[tucfawa]

Default settings - AdGuard IS LIGHTER!

"Default settings"? Oh ok, now you mention it.

So "Default settings" for both. New install for both. After both were installed, I quit and reloaded the browser (Google Chrome 32-bit). I then left the browser idle for 5 minutes. I loaded three tabs with good-sized web pages. For each web page I drilled into an article. Then I left the browser idle to ensure garbage collection.

Adguard default settings: Acceptable ads + English filters.

uBlock default settings: µBlock filters + EasyList + Peter Lowe's Ad server list + EasyPrivacy + Malware Domain List + Malware domains + Malware domains (long lived)

So yes, with default settings, I could see Adguard footprint becoming marginally smaller (<200K). At the cost of becoming more exposed to trackers, malware domains, and probably more ad servers (because Peter Lowe's).

Clearly with this test, reproducible at will with the detailed steps, it still make no sense to claim Adguard is more efficient than uBlock.

 

[Ink]

@tucfawa You are correct, I didn't take the time to acknowledge the garbage collector in uBlock. It's currently consuming 50% less memory than AdBlock.

However, this does not mean I plan to switch any time soon. I have 8GB of RAM that can be utilized by Windows 8 and have already donated to the AdBlock developer, as I support his work, time and effort of this extension.

For arguments sake, here's a screenshot:

 

[legendcampos]

I uninstalled Adblock Plus and kept KIS Anti-Banner, consumption is good and the performance is not bad.

Can close the topic.

Thanks all!

 

[omidomi]

KIS Anti-Banner

 

[alexp79]

Hello
I always found Kaspersky anti banner quite heavy.
I use adfender now, it's free and i kindla like it