Which Adblocker is the best?

  • Adguard for Windows/Mac (Not browser extension)

    Votes: 92 32.9%
  • µblock

    Votes: 15 5.4%
  • Adblock Plus

    Votes: 18 6.4%
  • Ad-Muncher (Not browser extension)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (see post)

    Votes: 12 4.3%
  • µblock origin

    Votes: 143 51.1%

  • Total voters
    280
List of apps to compare
Desktop-based AdBlocking software
Browser-based AdBlocking extensions
What I am most interested about
Exclusive Features & Functionality
Why I want to compare these apps
which adblocker makes his work best and which protects against malware?
Which software/plugins you trust most?

uninfected1

Level 10
Verified
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
470
OS
Windows 7
Antivirus
Kaspersky
#63
I've tried Adguard desktop and extension and both really slow down my browsing, so yet again I've returned to uBlock Origin. On this computer things are way quicker with it. Because of time constraints I don't mess around too much with custom filters/rules etc like some of the tweakers here but just have it at Global hard mode, and if that breaks a site then I bring it down to local medium mode, and if it still doesn't work then local easy mode as shown here:
Blocking mode: hard mode · gorhill/uBlock Wiki · GitHub

Probably not as optimal as how some of you guys have uBO but I'm happy enough with it.
 
Last edited:

adelinaS

New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
2
OS
Windows 7
Antivirus
Comodo
#64
i use the adblock plus

excessive use of the filter used to make it slow and lag I prefer to choose what filter I need bacaus i ned security privacy and speed
 

Cats-4_Owners-2

Level 37
Verified
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
2,673
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Kaspersky
#69
ublock origin caused sites not to load. i went to adguard.
This happens, sometimes, with my wife using uBlock Origin on Firefox when visiting Department Store sites. She then uses either the off button or chooses not to visit the site (opting out of being traced). This happens less for her using Edge with Adguard's extension using fewer subscriptions, & feels a bit less secure than uBlock Origin where the trade off might be mere convenience over confidence! ;)
 
Last edited:

Spawn

Administrator
MalwareTips Staff
Verified
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
17,572
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Microsoft
#70
ublock origin caused sites not to load. i went to adguard.
Adguard isn't the ultimate solution either, there are pros and cons to both software.

I have found uBlock Origin more effective at blocking anti-adblock popups, but Adguard is easier to set-up with a familiar UI for the majority of users.

One minor nuisance is Forbes Welcome page, it is prevented on Firefox but not on Chrome. Both using identical filters.

Currently using Adguard (extension) with Privacy Badger (extension) on both Chrome/Firefox (Windows) and uBlock Origin on Microsoft Edge.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42
#71
I've been using uBO for a year or two now and have been very happy with it. It works well and I haven't noticed any performance or other issues. The only problem is that it can break some site functionality and require a bit of trial-and-error to figure out what needs to be allowed to make the site work. Despite it meeting my needs for my main browsing, I just bought AdGuard. I did so for a few reasons: it blocks the ads before the browser even starts to load them (which, in theory, should speed things up a bit), it blocks for all browsers and other apps (I'm not sure if there's a uBO extension for all browsers, and I certainly don't have it installed and configured in all of them, so it'll be nice to have AdGuard blocking stuff when I'm in one of my alternative browsers), and I can use it on Android. And, of course, its reputation here and elsewhere didn't hurt in my decision. Since I have both, I plan, at least for now or until I'm given good reason not to, to just run both, so uBO blocks what AdGuard doesn't. If you don't mind paying for AdGuard and would benefit from its blocking outside of browsers and on mobile devices, it seems like a great option. If you just need to block one or two browsers on your computer, I'd just go with uBO, which IMO is the superior option over uBlock and ADP (I don't know anything about Ad Muncher), based on performance, reputation, usability, and being open-source.

ublock origin caused sites not to load. i went to adguard.
This is probably because it was blocking main elements of the site, which I would argue means the site is made very poorly, like the ones that load blank if JS is disabled (who makes the entire site JS??). It's one of the problems of using an ad blocker like uBO: it's powerful, but it does require some tuning along the way and can be a bit much for many people. I'm absolutely sure I've spent FAR more time tweaking uMatrix and uBO than they've saved me by making pages load faster due to loading less content. Still, with default filters and settings this should rarely happen.

Adguard for me, it totally negates the ads on the webpage without leaving blank white boxes/areas
I don't recall seeing this with uBO, either.

- Protects against hyperlink auditing/beacon and WebRTC IP leaks.
and uBlock origin has other useful features like webrtc blocker
I'm not familiar with WebRTC, but what exactly is the reason for blocking it? It seems like it's just a useful tool and that blocking it would render certain things nonfunctional. Is it just because it can leak your IP? If that's the case, this only seems like it would be an issue with VPN/Tor/proxy use, not for typical browsing. Is that correct? As for hyperlink auditing, I read about that a while back, but don't remember much about it except that I didn't understand much of what I read. :p But it's good to know uBO blocks it, which I wasn't aware of.

I prefer Ublock Origin over Adguard software because surfing is smoother with the first one and it's open source.
I've tried Adguard desktop and extension and both really slow down my browsing, so yet again I've returned to uBlock Origin.
Were the problems that pages loaded slower or that AdGuard was more CPU/RAM-intensive and bogged the system down, slowing down browsing? I've only been using AdGuard for a few hours now, and I haven't noticed much difference either way. Pages seem to maybe be loading a bit slower, but it's hard to say, and it could be placebo (expecting/hoping for a noticeable improvement, so status quo might be a disappointment and just seem slower) or the not great internet connection being a little slower than usual.

There is no need run them both i think, just use one or the other. ;)
I prefer Ublock Origin over Adguard software but you have lifetime license for Adguard maybe combo.

Ublock Origin for ads and Adguard for othere thinks :) ( in Adguard turn off ads block Because you have Ublock Origin )
Adguard gets my vote, you can replace Ublock Origin with it by adding the much of the same filtration and eliminating overlap between the two plus you get Adguard stealth mode and all its features and there is the advantage of having one less extension thus a little bit better fingerprint non-uniqueness.
Maybe it's because I haven't done any configuration to AdGuard (wasn't even aware until reading this thread you could modify the filters, completely overlooked that during setup), but uBO is still blocking stuff. I guess I just figure why not continue to run uBO with AdGuard, since uBO is free, has such a tiny footprint and does offer other stuff beyond ad blocking, and even if it blocks a few ads here and there that AdGuard missed, that's something. And I certainly don't see the benefit to disabling AdGuard's ad blocker because you're using uBO. In fact, that seems like a terrible idea. It seems to me that if you are going to use both, you should let AdGuard be the first line of defense against ads, since it blocks them earlier (see end of post). If someone knows differently, please correct me.

As far as fingerprinting and trying to reduce your uniqueness, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a negligible difference or even if not using uBO would decrease your uniqueness (make you more identifiable). This is for two reasons: 1) the typical uBO user is the type of user that also uses a lot of other specific extensions, like NoScript, uMatrix, etc, so at this point instead of being part of a fairly large crowd using a combination of these, now you're part of what's likely a much smaller crowd using a combination of the others but not using an ad blocker, and 2) if they see that you're blocking ads (not sure if they can, but seems likely they would be able to) and you're not using an ad blocker extension, that puts you in a very small group of people using an external blocker.

Another alternative:

Install SimpleDNSscrypt set it to Adguard DNS, now you have DNSscrypt protection, blocks ads, trackers and phishing websites, and also a parental control instrument for your browsers. Of course it is in Beta so it wont block 100% ads some useful Ads might get thru. Adguard DNS - the free DNS with advanced ad blocking

If you play with your smart phone its unwise to configure your router to use Adguard DNS as it may also block useful game Ads.
I've asked about this in another thread and am very curious: what's the difference between AdGuard and AdGuard DNS? And what protection does the DNSCrypt feature offer?

I have not seen anyone mentioning this: Adguard desktop blocks stuff from being downloaded. Adguard extension prevents it from being displayed, after downloading.
Does it actually stop it from being downloaded, or only from being sent to the browser? Stopping it from being downloaded would mean less bandwidth usage, which would be great and was one of the main things I was hoping to achieve by using it, but I'm not sure how that would work, though I do know that mobile ad blockers claim to reduce data usage.


One final question: why use the AdGuard extensions instead of just using the app?
 

XhenEd

Level 27
Content Creator
Verified
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
1,673
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Default-Deny
#72
One final question: why use the AdGuard extensions instead of just using the app?
Aside from the differences you have stated already, the AdGuard Desktop version is paid, while the browser extension/add-on is free. Simple as that. :D

Just a note, uBlock Origin also "saves" bandwidth because it blocks network connections for those that are configured to be blocked. So, it's actually almost the same as AdGuard's. :)

I'm currently using uBlock Orign. But I have a lifetime license for AdGuard (valid for Windows and Android). So, if the time is right, I may return to using AdGuard. :D
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42
#73
Just a note, uBlock Origin also "saves" bandwidth because it blocks network connections for those that are configured to be blocked. So, it's actually almost the same as AdGuard's. :)
Does this actually save internet bandwidth, though? I just don't see how that's possible, unless it tells the server not to send the ads, but that seems unlikely. If it does, which seems to be the case, how does that work?
 

XhenEd

Level 27
Content Creator
Verified
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
1,673
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Default-Deny
#74
Does this actually save internet bandwidth, though? I just don't see how that's possible, unless it tells the server not to send the ads, but that seems unlikely. If it does, which seems to be the case, how does that work?
It doesn't "tell" the ad server not to send the ads. It just prevents or blocks the ad server from delivering the ads to the webpage. The ad server would try to inject the ads, but uBlock Origin, with its rules, would "respond" to the ad server with a "no". And so, there's saving of bandwidth because the ads are not even downloaded.

I think uBlock Origin calls these "network filters", in contrast to its "cosmetic filters". :)
 
Last edited:

TairikuOkami

Level 18
Content Creator
Verified
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
896
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Default-Deny
#75
Does this actually save internet bandwidth, though? I just don't see how that's possible, unless it tells the server not to send the ads, but that seems unlikely. If it does, which seems to be the case, how does that work?
It works like a firewall, it blocks the access to that particular webpage. You can try with Adguard DNS for comparison, blocked ADs look like this:
 

Attachments

oldschool

Level 15
Verified
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
709
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Cylance
#77
Im giving Ublock Origin a try, ive always used Adblock Plus.

Do you guys recommend just enabling all the lists that are off by default? (annoyances, malware domains, ads, privacy etc under Filter lists)
My 2 Cents: uBlock Origin in Advanced User Mode. Easy learning curve and may work easily depending on type of browsing you do. Watch The Hated One's youtube vid.! Or, see @Evjl's Rain's posts on custom lists he uses. He swears by it.:)(y) I guess I'm the advanced user mode evangelist!
 

CyberTech

Level 16
Verified
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
757
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Bitdefender
#78

Hector1

Level 4
Verified
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
152
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Microsoft
#79
I can't speak about Adguard desktop (never used) but I used both Adguard and uBlock origin extension. In my experience Adguard is better for unskilled users (easy to use and good with no or minimal tweak) and uBlock is better for advanced user thanks to advanced setting.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
240
#80
Correct me if I am wrong but using Adguard desktop means less browser extensions to do what it does, and less extensions means a more generic browser fingerprint and a more generic fingerprint would be better for privacy making Adguard desktop the better choice.