BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Web-based testing

You asked, and we heard you: WebXPRT 5 is on the way!

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on October 9, 2025

We’re excited to announce that WebXPRT 5 is officially on the way! Since we launched WebXPRT 4 in February 2022, it’s proven to be an exceptionally successful and reliable go-to benchmark for OEM labs, the tech press, and individual users alike—to the tune of over 644,000 runs to date. In past blog posts, we’ve discussed new features and possible auxiliary workloads that we contemplated adding to WebXPRT 4. As we’ve considered user comments and suggestions, changes in web technology, and how we can best position WebXPRT as a relevant browser benchmark in the future, however, it became clear that it was time for an all-new WebXPRT.

Now that we’ve announced WebXPRT 5, the first question for many existing WebXPRT users may be, “When will WebXPRT 5 be available?” We’re not yet ready to share an anticipated WebXPRT 5 release date, but we can share that a lot of groundwork is already complete, and the remaining work is moving along rapidly. We’ll continue to issue updates here in the blog as we reach important milestones.

The second question for many existing WebXPRT users may be, “How will WebXPRT change?” We’re not yet ready to share extensive details about WebXPRT 5’s workloads—rest assured that we will as soon as we can firm up everything—but we can share a few key guidelines we tried to follow in our WebXPRT 5 design. Each of these points of emphasis is a result of feedback we’ve received from labs, as well as features that users have asked for.

  • Provide more AI-related workloads. In past blog posts, we’ve discussed the growing importance of local, browser-side AI. WebXPRT 4 already includes timed AI tasks in two of its workloads: the Organize Album using AI workload and the Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan workload. We’re working on ways to expand WebXPRT’s AI portfolio in the next version.
  • Add WebGPU workloads. As a web API, WebGPU enables web-based applications—such as image-based GenAI and inference workloads—to directly access the graphics rendering and computational capabilities of a system’s GPU. We hope to incorporate WebGPU measures in WebXPRT 5.
  • Improve WebXPRT’s utility as a tool for test labs, publications, and engineering analysis.
    • Update the workloads with longer operations. Many of WebXPRT’s existing workloads no longer challenge cutting-edge consumer hardware as much as many of us would like. Testing labs have asked for longer and more demanding workloads. We’re working on incorporating workloads that are accessible enough to be run by a broad range of devices yet challenging enough to allow performance differentiation among high-end systems.
    • Enable more precise performance measures. Labs and testers have also asked for more granular insight into the workloads to help with engineering-level performance analysis. Currently, some WebXPRT 4 workload scores include multiple timed tasks. If we separate those compound scores so that each workload reports results from only one timed task, users will be able to more precisely assess how well a device performs while handling specific operations. We’re looking into this approach.
  • Modernize the harness to make it more flexible and to speed future work. WebXPRT 4’s current harness works with server-side sessions on a LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP) stack. If we implement the harness via JavaScript on the client side, it will pave the way for faster development and testing cycles in the future.

We expect WebXPRT 5 to carry on the WebXPRT legacy of reliability and real-world relevance, while providing users with compelling new workloads and features. As has been our habit with new benchmark releases, however, we won’t force anyone to change versions anytime soon. Instead, we will continue to make WebXPRT 4 available for quite some time after WebXPRT 5 goes live.

If you have any questions or comments about WebXPRT, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in AI, Application-based benchmarks, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Future of performance evaluation, GPU, image classification, image processing, inference, LAMP, on-device AI, Performance benchmarking, Web AI, web API, Web-based testing, WebGPU, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, WebXPRT 4 |

Browser-based AI tests in WebXPRT 4: optical character recognition

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on July 3, 2025

In our previous blog post, we discussed the rapidly expanding influence of AI-enhanced technologies in areas like everyday browser activity—and the growing need for objective performance data that can help us understand how well new consumer devices will handle AI tasks. We noted that WebXPRT 4 already includes timed AI tasks in two of its workloads—the “Organize Album using AI” and “Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan”—and we provided some technical details for the Organize Album workload. In today’s post, we’ll focus on the Encrypt Notes workload.

The Encrypt Notes workload includes two separate scenarios that reflect common web-based productivity app tasks. The first scenario syncs a set of encrypted notes, and the second scenario uses AI-based optical character recognition (OCR) to scan a receipt, extract data, and then add that data to an expense report.

Here are the details for each scenario:

  • The encrypt notes scenario downloads a set of notes, encrypts that data, temporarily stores it in the browser’s localStorage object (the localStorageDB.js database layer), and then decrypts and renders it for display. This scenario measures HTML5 Local Storage, JavaScript, AES encryption, and WebAssembly (Wasm) performance. 
  • The OCR scan scenario uses a Wasm-based version of Tesseract.js (tesseract-core.wasm.js v2.20) to scan an expense receipt. Tesseract.js is a JavaScript port of the Tesseract OCR engine—a popular open-source C/C++ library that extracts text from images and PDFs. The scenario then adds the receipt to an expense report. This scenario measures HTML5 Local Storage, JavaScript, and Wasm performance. 

We mention this test under the AI umbrella in part because people sometimes use the term “OCR” to refer to a spectrum of AI and non-AI technologies. In this case, though, the specifics make this workload clearly have an AI component. The Wasm-based Tesseract library that we use in WebXPRT 4 is based on a version of C/C++ (v4.x) that uses Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM). LSTM is a type of recurrent neural network (RNN) that is particularly well-suited for processing and predicting sequential data. As such, it is clearly an AI component of the Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan workload.

To produce a score for each iteration of the workload, WebXPRT calculates the total time that it takes for a system to sync (encrypt, decrypt, and render) the notes, use OCR to scan the receipt, and add the scanned data to an expense report. In a standard test, WebXPRT runs seven iterations of the entire six-workload performance suite before calculating an overall test score. You can find out more about the WebXPRT results calculation process here.

Along with our post on the Organize Album workload, we hope this information provides a deeper understanding of WebXPRT 4’s AI-equipped workloads. As we mentioned last time, if you want to explore the structure of these workloads in more detail, you can check out previous blog posts for information about how to access and use the WebXPRT 4 source code for free. You can also read more about WebXPRT’s overall structure and other workloads in the Exploring WebXPRT 4 white paper.

If you have any questions about WebXPRT 4, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, computer vision, Cross-platform benchmarks, HTML5, inference, OCR, on-device AI, Performance benchmarking, Wasm, Web-based testing, WebAssembly, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, White papers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Web AI frameworks: Possible paths for the AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on September 5, 2024

A few months ago, we announced that we’re moving forward with the development of a new auxiliary WebXPRT 4 workload focused on local, browser-side AI technology. Local AI has many potential benefits, and it now seems safe to say that it will be a common fixture of everyday life for many people in the future. As the growth of browser-based inference technology picks up steam, our goal is to equip WebXPRT 4 users with the ability to quickly and reliably evaluate how well devices can handle substantial local inference tasks in the browser.

To reach our goal, we’ll need to make many well-researched and carefully considered decisions along the development path. Throughout the decision-making process, we’ll be balancing our commitment to core XPRT values, such as ease of use and widespread compatibility, with the practical realities of working with rapidly changing emergent technologies. In today’s blog, we’re discussing one of the first decision points that we face—choosing a Web AI framework.

AI frameworks are suites of tools and libraries that serve as building blocks for developers to create new AI-based models and apps or integrate existing AI functions in custom ways. AI frameworks can be commercial, such as OpenAI, or open source, such as Hugging Face, PyTorch, and TensorFlow. Because the XPRTs are available at no cost for users and we publish our source code, open-source frameworks are the right choice for WebXPRT.

Because the new workload will focus on locally powered, browser-based inference tasks, we also need to choose an AI framework that has browser integration capabilities and does not rely on server-side computing. These types of frameworks—called Web AI—use JavaScript (JS) APIs and other web technologies, such as WebAssembly and WebGPU, to run machine learning (ML) tasks on a device’s CPU, GPU, or NPU.

Several emerging Web AI frameworks may provide the compatibility and functionality we need for the future WebXPRT workload. Here are a few that we’re currently researching:

  • ONNX Runtime Web: Microsoft and other partners developed the Open Neural Network Exchange (ONNX) as an open standard for ML models. With available tools, users can convert models from several AI frameworks to ONNX, which can then be used by ONNX Runtime Web. ONNX Runtime Web allows developers to leverage the broad compatibility of ONNX-formatted ML models—including pre-trained vision, language, and GenAI models—in their web applications.
  • Transformers.js: Transformers.js, which uses ONNX Runtime Web, is a JS library that allows users to run AI models from the browser and offline. Transformers.js supports language, computer vision, and audio ML models, among others.
  • MediaPipe: Google developed MediaPipe as a way for developers to adapt TensorFlow-based models for use across many platforms in real-time on-device inference applications such as face detection and gesture recognition. MediaPipe is particularly useful for inference work in images, videos, and live streaming.
  • TensorFlow.js: TensorFlow has been around for a long time, and the TensorFlow ecosystem provides users with a broad variety of models and datasets. TensorFlow is an end-to-end ML solution—training to inference—but with available pre-trained models, developers can focus on inference. TensorFlow.js is an open-source JS library that helps developers integrate TensorFlow with web apps.

We have not made final decisions about a Web AI framework or any aspect of the future workload. We’re still in the research, discussion, and experimentation stages of development, but we want to be transparent with our readers about where we are in the process. In future blog posts, we’ll discuss some of the other major decision points in play.

Most of all, we invite you to join us in these discussions, make recommendations, and give us any other feedback or suggestions you may have, so please feel free to share your thoughts!

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, computer vision, Cross-platform benchmarks, face detection, Future of performance evaluation, Google, GPU, image classification, inference, JavaScript, Machine learning, MediaPipe, Microsoft, NPU, on-device AI, ONNX Runtime Web, Open Source, OpenAI, Performance benchmarking, PyTorch, TensorFlow, Transformers.js, Video, Web AI, Web-based testing, WebAssembly, WebGPU, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Contribute to WebXPRT’s AI capabilities with your NPU-equipped gear

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on July 11, 2024

A few weeks ago, we announced that we’re developing a new auxiliary WebXPRT 4 workload focused on local, browser-based AI technology. This is an exciting project for us, and as we work to determine the best approach from the perspective of frameworks, APIs, inference models, and test scenarios, we’re also thinking ahead to the testing process. To best understand how the new workload will impact system performance, we’re going to need to test it on hardware equipped with the latest generation of neural processing units (NPUs).

NPUs are not new, but the technology is advancing rapidly, and a growing number of PC and laptop manufacturers are releasing NPU-equipped systems. Several vendors have announced plans to release systems equipped with all-new NPUs in the latter half of this year. As is often the case with bleeding-edge technology, however, official release dates do not always coincide with widespread availability.

We want to evaluate new AI-focused WebXPRT workloads on the widest possible range of new systems, but getting a wide selection of gear equipped with the latest NPUs may take quite a while through normal channels. For that reason, we’ve decided to ask our readers for help to expedite the process.

If you’re an OEM or vendor representative with access to the latest generation of NPU-equipped gear and want to contribute to WebXPRT’s evolution, consider sending us any PCs, white boxes, laptops, 2-in-1s, or tablets (on loan) that would be suitable for NPU-focused testing. We have decades of experience serving as trusted testers of confidential and pre-release gear, so we’re well-acquainted with concerns about confidentiality that may come into play, and we won’t publish any information about the systems or related test results without your permission.

We will, though, be happy to share with you our test results on your systems, and we’d love to hear any guidance or other feedback from you on this new workload.

We’re open to any suitable gear, but we’re especially interested in AMD Ryzen AI, Apple M4, Intel Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake, and Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite systems.

If you’re interested in sending us gear for WebXPRT development testing, please contact us. We’ll work out all the necessary details. Thanks in advance for your help!

Justin

Posted in AI, AMD, Apple, Arrow Lake, benchmark, Benchmarking, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, Future of performance evaluation, Intel, Laptops, Lunar Lake, M4, Machine learning, Mobile devices, NPU, on-device AI, PCs, Performance benchmarking, Qualcomm, Ryzen AI, Snapdragon X Elite, Tablets, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

WebXPRT in PT reports

Mark Van Name
By Mark Van Name
on February 22, 2024

We don’t just make WebXPRT—we use it, too. If you normally come straight to BenchmarkXPRT.com or WebXPRT.com, you may not even realize that Principled Technologies (PT) does a lot more than just managing and administering the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community. We’re also the tech world’s leading provider of hands-on testing and related fact-based marketing services. As part of that work, we’re frequent WebXPRT users.

We use the benchmark when we test devices such as Chromebooks, desktops, mobile workstations, and consumer laptops for our clients. (You can see a lot of that work and many of our clients on our public marketing portfolio page.) We run the benchmark for the same reasons that others do—it’s a reliable and easy-to-use tool for measuring how well devices handle web browsing and other web work.

We also sometimes use WebXPRT simply because our clients request it. They request it for the same reason the rest of us like and use it: it’s a great tool. Regardless of job titles and descriptions, most laptop and tablet users surf the web and access web-based applications every day. Because WebXPRT is a browser benchmark, higher scores on it could indicate that a device may provide a superior online experience.

Here are just a few of the recent PT reports that used WebXPRT:

  • In a project for Dell, we compared the performance of a Dell Latitude 7340 Ultralight to that of a 13-inch Apple MacBook Air (2022).
  • In this study for HP, we compared the performance of an HP ZBook Firefly G10, an HP ZBook Power G10, and an HP ZBook Fury G10.
  • Finally, in a set of comparisons for Lenovo, we evaluated the system performance and end-user experience of eight Lenovo ThinkBook, ThinkCentre, and ThinkPad systems along with their Apple counterparts.

All these projects, and many more, show how a variety of companies rely on PT—and on WebXPRT—to help buyers make informed decisions. P.S. If we publish scores from a client-commissioned study in the WebXPRT 4 results viewer, we will list the source as “PT”, because we did the testing.

By Mark L. Van Name and Justin Greene

Posted in Apple, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Benchmarking computing devices, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chromebooks, Dell, HP, Laptops, Lenovo, Performance benchmarking, Principled Technologies, PT, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, webxprt 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Comparing the WebXPRT 4 performance of five popular browsers

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on January 25, 2024

Every so often, we like to refresh a series of in-house WebXPRT comparison tests to see if recent updates have changed the performance rankings of popular web browsers. We published our most recent comparison last February, when we used WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of five browsers on the same system.

For this round of tests, we used the same Dell XPS 13 7930 laptop as last time, which features an Intel Core i3-10110U processor and 4 GB of RAM, running Windows 11 Home updated to version 23H2 (22631.307). We installed all current Windows updates, and updated each of the browsers under test: Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera.

After the update process completed, we turned off updates to prevent them from interfering with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 three times on each of the five browsers. The score we post for each browser is the median of the three test runs.

In our last round of tests, the range between high and low scores was tight, with an overall difference of only 4.3 percent. Edge squeaked out a win, with a 2.1 percent performance advantage over Chrome. Firefox came in last, but was only one overall score point behind the tied score of Brave and Opera.

In this round of testing, the rank order did not change, but we saw more differentiation in the range of scores. While the performance of each browser improved, the range between high and low scores widened to a 19.1 percent difference between first-place Edge and last-place Firefox. The scores of the four Chromium-based browsers (Brave, Opera, Chrome, and Edge) all improved by at least 21 points, while the Firefox score only improved by one point. 

Do these results mean that Microsoft Edge will always provide a faster web experience, or Firefox will always be slower than the others? Not necessarily. It’s true that a device with a higher WebXPRT score will probably feel faster during daily web activities than one with a much lower score, but your experience depends in part on the types of things you do on the web, along with your system’s privacy settings, memory load, ecosystem integration, extension activity, and web app capabilities.

In addition, browser speed can noticeably increase or decrease after an update, and OS-specific optimizations can affect performance, such as with Edge on Windows 11 and Chrome on Chrome OS. All these variables are important to keep in mind when considering how WebXPRT results may translate to your everyday experience.

Have you used WebXPRT 4 to compare browser performance on the same system? Let us know how it turned out!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, Brave, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chromium, Firefox, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla, Opera, Performance benchmarking, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, Windows 11, Windows Update | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?
© Principled Technologies, Inc. 2025   |   Privacy policy

Cookie Notice: Our website uses cookies to deliver a smooth experience by storing logins and saving user information. By continuing to use our site, you agree with our usage of cookies as our privacy policy outlines.

x