Battle Ublock Origin vs Adguard Chrome extension

Most interested about
  1. Ease of use
  2. Design of UI
  3. Exclusive Features

Malakke

Level 5
Jan 29, 2013
223
Hi guys. I'm a longtime Ublock Origin user, but lastly i'm using Adguard Chrome extension and i've found its capabilities superior to UBO, especially in:

- Stealth Mode: very useful to avoid cookies and tracking
- Specific language filter: select automatic filters according site language you are visiting.
- Better adblocking in some sites, e.g. inoreader.com, theverge.com, etc..
- Better user interface
- Better malware protection

As cons:

- Not open source (privacy concerns?)
- Slow browsing than Ubo
- Less customizable than Ubo about blocking scripts (by domain, frames, ....)

Your opinions will welcome ;)

Thanks

Regards
 
Last edited:

Jan Willy

Level 7
Jul 5, 2019
304
Pay to whitelist a webpage, a hilarious business model. I also do not like misleading advertisements, like 0€ per month for free premium (but only for 30 days). Looks phishy overall. ⚠️
I don't share your bad impression. However further discussion would be off-topic.
Edit: I don't like browser-extensions at all, but that's also a different story.
 
Last edited:

HarborFront

Level 59
Verified
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
4,835
I saw another extension here: Ninja Cookie | Opt out of non-essential cookies and automatically remove cookie popups.
The difference with I don't care about cookies is that it not only removes cookiebanners but also rejects the use of non-essential cookies. I haven't tried out it yet.
Its privacy policy don't look good. I'll stick with "I don't care about cookies"

 

Terry Ganzi

Level 26
Verified
Feb 7, 2014
1,546
Ublock never include or never was or could block cookies now that is misleading to tell people it does, on the other hand Umatrix blocks cookies I'll post an image to settle peoples mind. The below image is Umatrix, Ublock never could do that.
 

Attachments

  • 2.PNG
    2.PNG
    14.5 KB · Views: 353
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and Malakke

Jan Willy

Level 7
Jul 5, 2019
304
Ublock never include or never was or could block cookies now that is misleading to tell people it does, on the other hand Umatrix blocks cookies I'll post an image to settle peoples mind. The below image is Umatrix, Ublock never could do that.
On MT I've never seen someone who claims that uBlock blocks cookies. Every browser has the possibility of cookie management. So why should we use uMatrix for that?
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Jan 8, 2011
21,053
Why Adguard Adblocker (extension) is better than uBlock Origin: Most user friendly choice.

Best for:
  • New users, busy people
  • Ease of use
  • Users who don't want to deal with broken websites
  • Balanced settings with changeable options (ie. toggle for search ads)

Yes, uBlock Origin may be more capable, but it's not the most user friendly for all the types of users.
 

ErzCrz

Level 10
Verified
Aug 19, 2019
454
I'm trialing adguard at the moment but I think I still prefer ublock medium mode with the noop rules. Just some pages with more ads on them are a bit slow to load with Adguard though adguard blocks some 225 elements compared to uBO of just 14. Trying to find a happy medium and more of a set and forget option.
 

Terry Ganzi

Level 26
Verified
Feb 7, 2014
1,546
For the record, I like ublock features more, especially that it shows, how many filters are actually used, so it helps to avoid obsolete filters. But neither of those two is able to block all cookie notices lately (because of a chrome update?). When I use "I don't care about cookies" filter, they are not blocked, but when I use "I don't care about cookies" extension, they are.
This is the post that I was talking about no need to get all fired up.
Ublock Origin performs great but with in what it was design to do. Thank you
 

Attachments

  • 1.PNG
    1.PNG
    5.8 KB · Views: 332
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi

Local Host

Level 24
Verified
Sep 26, 2017
1,325
A few months has pased, i wonder what is the state of Adguard today. Did they fix the slowdowns or is pretty much the same as before? (chrome addon, not the windows app)

thanks.
I been using Adguard Desktop for years and it has never affected my browsing speed, there already been suggestions for those affected.

Anyone claiming Adguard is not customizable as uBlock Origin, clearly hasn't used Adguard properly (if anything Adguard provides even more options).

In the end I don't care what others use, simply avoid spreading misinformation.
 

Kees1958

Level 2
Verified
Sep 5, 2021
80
The only sort of independent test I know of is six years old. It looked at page load times, CPU and memory usage and was published at raymond.cc (link).

In regard to page load times, most adblockers do well as illustrated with below picture.
1631874865241.png


The differentiator is the amount of CPU an extension needs to accomplish this job (with so many RAM in modern PC's, memory use is a non-issue) in which Adguard extension finsihed third, behind Ghostery and the winner uBlockOrigin.
1631874976747.png


There are people complaining about AdGuard slowing down internet speed, but these are usually Adguard desktop users.
My personal experience with Adguard extension is that it works great (even with the Stealth privacy feature enabled).
I use Adguard on my phone with Samsung browser and uBlockOrigin on my PC with Edge browser.
 
Last edited:

South Park

Level 7
Verified
Jun 23, 2018
334
For Firefox and Edge: uBO is very light and efficient, and easy to troubleshoot. For Chrome or non-Ungoogled Chromium: AdGuard Extension in stealth mode blocks some tracking that uBO does not.

In general, I prefer the logger in AdGuard but I find the overall interface in uBO easier to use. Subjectively, uBO seems faster to me on Chromium than AdGuard, but I use the latter for stealth mode.

Delete X-Client-Data headerthis setting will prevent Chrome browser from sending information about itself to Google domains (unique to Chrome browser).
 

South Park

Level 7
Verified
Jun 23, 2018
334
GorHill from uBlock Origin is very passionate about making his extension as lightweight as possible. AdGuard? I don't know her lol
This is true. I did some testing with current 64-bit Chromium, using profiles which were identical except that one had uBO and one had ADG. I found the uBO profile used about the same amount of RAM as no ad blocker at all (about 500 MB with four news sites open), while ADG used about 650 MB of RAM with the same four sites open. ADG was also noticeably sluggish about loading pages, esp. Politico.com. My laptop has a paltry 4 GB of shared RAM, so every bit counts.

Considering the small increase in privacy but big performance hit with ADG, I decided to go back to using uBO on Chromium. I speculate that the performance difference lies with ADG's extensive use of regex's in its default lists.
 
Top