oldschool

Level 32
Verified
using the default settings in both, adguard beats ublock because adguard's english, spyware and annoyance filters are much much better than ublock's basic filters combine

ublock with these adguard's lists + other great filters >>>>> adguard
adguard can't add custom filters and manage/autoupdate. When a filter is added into adguard, it is copied and pasted (automatically) into user filters -> when you want to update the filter, you must redo the above step, manually => that's why I hate adguard extension

1 more thing, adguard isn't fully compatible with filters made for adblock plus and ublock. When you copy some rules into adguard user filter, adguard will show syntax error
Very nice explanation! (y)

@TerrakionSmash - I don't know how you normally use uBO or Nano, but if you use either in Advanced user medium mode you can do away with some default filters. Then speed is no problem at all. But this depends on your browsing style. If I wanted only an adblocker in Edge I would use AdBlock.
 

Handsome Recluse

Level 19
Verified
Very nice explanation! (y)

@TerrakionSmash - I don't know how you normally use uBO or Nano, but if you use either in Advanced user medium mode you can do away with some default filters. Then speed is no problem at all. But this depends on your browsing style. If I wanted only an adblocker in Edge I would use AdBlock.
I gave up script blocking. It doesn't benefit me on popular (non-news) sites I use over an adblocker since everything's blocked by it anyway and so doesn't help my slow internet. Everything else is a gamble since I don't perceive increased speed when script blocking and I do have to reload when a site with blocked scripts is unusable which doubles the waiting time. The 50000 list removed from optimized Adguard Base alone makes up for having those extra lists anyway while being more usable. And the only extra non-overlapping list you need is EasyPrivacy and Social Blocking. There's very little benefit of adding other filter lists here except for Anti-Facebook and Anti-thirdparty Fonts which are very small anyway.
I honestly can use either but it seems uBlock Origin-based extensions plus Chrome is common enough that anti-adblocking is common against it (which the addition of the built-in Adguard Base filter doesn't remedy). The number of Adguard users are significantly smaller.
 

oldschool

Level 32
Verified
I gave up script blocking. It doesn't benefit me on popular (non-news) sites I use over an adblocker since everything's blocked by it anyway and so doesn't help my slow internet. Everything else is a gamble since I don't perceive increased speed when script blocking and I do have to reload when a site with blocked scripts is unusable which doubles the waiting time. The 50000 list removed from optimized Adguard Base alone makes up for having those extra lists anyway while being more usable. And the only extra non-overlapping list you need is EasyPrivacy and Social Blocking. There's very little benefit of adding other filter lists here except for Anti-Facebook and Anti-thirdparty Fonts which are very small anyway.
I honestly can use either but it seems uBlock Origin-based extensions plus Chrome is common enough that anti-adblocking is common against it (which the addition of the built-in Adguard Base filter doesn't remedy). The number of Adguard users are significantly smaller.
Thanks, I just learned something new. This is what I love about MT. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nestor

Windows_Security

Level 23
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Please explain further.
Are the shorter lists in Adguard better than the supposed efficiency of uBlock Origin or Nano Adblocker with the same longer lists?
I don't have tested it, but Adguard with optimized filters feels nearly as fast as uBlock (although Ram usage is higher than uB0, so uB0 will probably be faster than Adguard in syntetic tests).

I like the adblock wizzard of Adguard better than uB0, also I started to experiment with CSS block rules (to bypass cookie walls on News websites).

Reasons for change were accidental (with Adguard default english filter I can bypass some cookie walls)

Also like you mentioned in a previous post Adguard filters are hassle free (does not break website)
 

vaccineboy

Level 1
using the default settings in both, adguard beats ublock because adguard's english, spyware and annoyance filters are much much better than ublock's basic filters combine

ublock with these adguard's lists + other great filters >>>>> adguard
adguard can't add custom filters and manage/autoupdate. When a filter is added into adguard, it is copied and pasted (automatically) into user filters -> when you want to update the filter, you must redo the above step, manually => that's why I hate adguard extension

1 more thing, adguard isn't fully compatible with filters made for adblock plus and ublock. When you copy some rules into adguard user filter, adguard will show syntax error
Adguard is working on a new version which supports custom list subscription, as well as stealth mode. Stay tuned!
 

Handsome Recluse

Level 19
Verified
Have you noticed better performance and memory usage with the new extension? Can you tell if it's lighter than uBlock Origin. Thanks
Can't tell any difference in responsiveness and everyday use between them. As always.
YES on Edge I now use Adguard with optimized filters option and English filters, on Firefox Avira (which also uses Adguard) and on Chrome Malware Bytes extension.
You haven't told me if Avira uses Adguard or you use Avira along with Adguard on Firefox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azure

Handsome Recluse

Level 19
Verified
@Windows_Security Is the marginal additional malware blocking of Avira/Malwarebytes that more significant over Smartscreen/Safe Browsing and Adguard Phishing and Malware Protection?
Haha. Optimized 'Malware Domains' list currently only has 85 entries. You'd think that it'd be 0 if no one was really visiting that site esp. because Adguard users should be marginally smarter than the median non-adblocking or popular adblocking/tracker/content blocking users given its relatively unpopular usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool

Windows_Security

Level 23
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
@Windows_Security Is the marginal additional malware blocking of Avira/Malwarebytes that more significant over Smartscreen/Safe Browsing and Adguard Phishing and Malware Protection?
Haha. Optimized 'Malware Domains' list currently only has 85 entries. You'd think that it'd be 0 if no one was really visiting that site esp. because Adguard users should be marginally smarter than the median non-adblocking or popular adblocking/tracker/content blocking users given its relatively unpopular usage.
I use them on different browsers Adguard with malware blocking on Edge (windows 10) with smartscreen, Firefox with Avira (adguard) oith Windows7 and Chrome as secondary browser on both with MalwareBytes plus Google's own safe browsing.

On Firefox Avira is a noticeable improvement. On Chrome I like the file/executable downloading blocking featre of MBAM extension.
 

Handsome Recluse

Level 19
Verified
On Firefox Avira is a noticeable improvement. On Chrome I like the file/executable downloading blocking featre of MBAM extension.
1544657550005.png

Oh. I understand everything now.
Does MB extension have cosmetic filtering though?
Looks like you can only have Adguard and the more popular ones on Edge and Palemoon though.
Weird though that you have different extensions for your two primary browsers and your secondary browser.
 
Last edited:

Windows_Security

Level 23
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Well, I also make websites. When youcreate website, there are special websites to check whether the website looks and functions good on different browsers. I always use these when creating or revisioning websites. I should also all test them after a browser update, but that is to much hassle. A lazy way to check out these websites from time to time is to use different browsers (with different ad blocking add-ons).
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool

Handsome Recluse

Level 19
Verified
Reasons for change were accidental (with Adguard default english filter I can bypass some cookie walls)
Also like you mentioned in a previous post Adguard filters are hassle free (does not break website)
From AdGuard only english filter and some custom rules (for silencing cookie walls)
:) yep, lazy setup is not the same as best and optimized
Never thought you'd devolve into only using a large one-trick pony only-blocks-ads list instead of a small list that blocks all of the following: ads, trackers and social.
 

Windows_Security

Level 23
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
I'm interested how much pages load faster for both fast and slow internet and how much bandwidth is from each of the categories - ads, social, trackers. Quantification makes decisions easier since there's less guesswork.
My ISP upgraded my internet from 60 MB to 100MB and this year to 200MB. This means the download speed via WIFI on the ground floor is from 130-180 and on first floor 90-115 MB. With this bandwith page loads are so good there is little need for tweaking filter lists for optimum results (pageloads). On my windows 7 desktop Chrome with MBAM has often 10-15% higher download speed and page loads than Firefox with Avira Browser Safety. Surprisingly Firefox performs better in some browser tests (e.g. speed battle).