BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Chrome

WebXPRT 5: AI tests now, lots of room for growth

In past blog posts, we’ve discussed our goal of developing one or more experimental WebXPRT workloads focused on local, browser-side AI technologies. While many of us regularly interact with cloud-based AI apps and services through a browser, on-device AI capabilities are growing rapidly, and we want WebXPRT to continue to evolve with them.

There are several driving factors behind that growth. Web API technologies keep maturing, giving browsers direct access to the hardware they need for real inference work. Advanced GPU and NPU technology is now widely available in consumer devices, so the local computing power necessary to run AI applications on-device is in reach for many users. And for many organizations, there are compelling reasons to execute increasingly vital work like LLM inferencing and agentic coding tasks on local machines—such as data privacy, regulatory compliance, and cost control.

The reasons for the experimental workload approach

The expansion of on-device AI is exactly the type of shift we built the experimental workload concept to capture. As we shared when we first announced the WebXPRT 5 workload lineup, an experimental workload section gives us the flexibility to put cutting-edge measurement tools in users’ hands—even if those tools won’t yet run on every platform WebXPRT has traditionally supported. Experimental scores stay separate from the main overall score and are completely optional, so we can add tests without affecting comparability or asking anyone to retest. That approach maintains WebXPRT’s strengths while preparing the benchmark for the future—and giving all of us valuable information today.

The AI functions that WebXPRT 5 measures today

WebXPRT 5 already includes four workloads that utilize AI capabilities: Video Background Blur with AI, Detect Faces with AI, Image Classification with AI, and Document Scan with AI. These workloads use machine learning—computer vision and OCR models such as a Caffe-based face detector, SqueezeNet for image labeling, and an LSTM-based OCR engine. WebXPRT’s ability to measure how well devices handle those types of workloads has real value, and it reflects the kinds of light browser-side inference tasks that have been in widespread use for a while.

We recognize, though, that there’s a clear need for more demanding local, browser-based AI workloads—especially LLM inference. We’re targeting that need with our experimental work. Like pretty much everyone else, we’re also developing in the midst of an incredibly dynamic technical environment. We want to purposefully move forward without sacrificing WebXPRT’s stability and reliability for the sake of expedience.

The main decisions we face

Choosing a Web AI framework. We’re still researching our open-source framework options, including candidates like ONNX Runtime Web, Transformers.js, MediaPipe, and TensorFlow.js. The ground here continues to shift. For example, Transformers.js v4 now supports a WebGPU backend and spans a very broad range of model architectures. So, one of our ongoing challenges is picking a durable foundation.

Choosing a web API. Of the primary options we’re investigating, WebGPU now has the broadest browser support (Chrome, Edge, and partial support in Firefox and Safari). WebNN remains the most promising option in the long term because it can directly target NPUs, but it’s still not ready for production—its W3C spec only reached Candidate Recommendation status in early 2026, and browser support outside of flagged, experimental builds isn’t there yet. Our web API outlook hasn’t changed much from before: WebGPU is the most practical path today, and WebNN may be an exciting possibility for tomorrow.

Choosing and sizing workloads. We’ll ideally find workloads demanding enough to genuinely stress new hardware, but light enough to run on slightly older gear without forcing huge model downloads or overextending the test’s runtime. The sweet spot for browser inference today tends to be small, quantized models, and memory ceilings and cold-start downloads are real constraints. Striking the right balance is another part of the challenge we’re working through.

We appreciate your patience

We’ve been talking about experimental WebXPRT AI workloads for a while. While we wish we already had everything worked out, we think the end product will be worth the wait. We appreciate your patience as we work through the details, and we’ll keep updating you here in the blog as we make progress.

As always, we’re open to suggestions. If you have ideas for a browser-based AI workload scenario, a framework or API you think we should weigh, a browser-based AI application you want us to consider, or any other related thoughts, please let us know!

Justin

Recent WebXPRT mentions in tech press articles, reviews, and more!

We’ve been excited to see steady growth in the number and variety of media outlets discussing WebXPRT around the world—especially WebXPRT 5. Tracking WebXPRT’s reach in the global tech press—with both English- and non-English-speaking audiences—helps us assess how well WebXPRT’s effectiveness as a benchmarking tool is translating across geographies and cultures.

One way we track WebXPRT’s reach is by paying attention to how much people use and discuss the benchmark in ads, articles, or tech reviews. We call each of those instances a “mention.” We know that our readers won’t see all of those mentions during their normal reading, so we occasionally like to share a sample of recent WebXPRT mentions here in the blog. Whether you just started following WebXPRT or you’re a longtime blog reader, we hope you’ll enjoy exploring the links below!

Recent WebXPRT mentions include the following:

  • PCMag used WebXPRT 5 in an article comparing the speed of the Apple Safari, Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Mozilla Firefox browsers.
  • Intel referenced WebXPRT 5 performance scores in a press release and product brief for Core Series 3 processors.
  • Tom’s Hardware included WebXPRT 5 in an updated list of recommended CPU benchmarks.
  • Notebookcheck published WebXPRT 5 scores for more than 50 devices on its Benchmark and Test Results page, including the Alienware 16 Area-51, Apple MacBook Pro 16 2025 M5 Pro, ASUS ROG Zephyrus Duo, Lenovo Legion 7 16, MSI Prestige 16 AI, and Samsung Galaxy Book6 Ultra.
  • Microsoft’s Windows Performance Lab published a range of benchmark results that included WebXPRT 4 scores for devices from a wide range of vendors, including an array of Dell laptops.
  • Other outlets that have published articles, ads, or reviews mentioning WebXPRT in the last few months include the following: 3DNews.ru (Russia), AboutChromebooks.com, Alibaba.com (China), BenchLife.info (China), ComputerBase (Germany), iPon (Germany), ITC.ua (Ukraine), Mobasai (Taiwan), Phoronix, TechRadar, Tweakers, XFastest (Taiwan), and ZDNET Korea, among many others.

On a related note, if you’d like to receive monthly updates on XPRT-related news and activity, we encourage you to sign up for our XPRT newsletter. It’s completely free, and all you need to do to join the newsletter mailing list is let us know! We never publish, share, or sell any of the contact information our readers provide, and we’ll only send you the monthly newsletter and occasional benchmark-related announcements, such as important news about patches or releases.

If you have any questions or comments about WebXPRT 5 or the XPRTs in general, please feel free to contact us. We love to hear from the folks that are using our benchmarks!

Justin

WebXPRT appearances in recent articles, reviews, and more!

Over the last few weeks, we’ve been excited to see steady growth in the number of people running the WebXPRT 5 Preview—as well as how widely distributed those runs are around the world. To get a picture of WebXPRT’s approximate global reach, we run the IP address data from our database through a program that provides general city- and country-level location information. By tallying that location data, we can better understand where people are running WebXPRT. By the way, this is the most detailed information we have, and all test data will remain completely anonymous unless you submit it for publication.

Based on that info—along with direct feedback from users—we’ve determined that OEM labs, tech press journalists, and individual consumers have already run the WebXPRT 5 Preview in more than 125 cities across 35 countries!

Test run data is just one of the ways that we track the progress we’re making toward our goal of providing all interested parties with benchmark tools that are reliable, relevant, and free to use. Another important way we track progress toward that goal is by paying attention to how much people use and discuss the XPRTs. When the name of one of our apps appears in an ad, article, or tech review, we call it a “mention.” Tracking those kinds of mentions helps us gauge our reach.

From time to time, we like to share a sample of recent XPRT mentions here in the blog. If you just started following the XPRTs, it may be surprising to see our global reach. Whether you’re a new visitor to the XPRT blog or a longtime reader, we hope you’ll enjoy exploring the links below!

Recent mentions include:

If you’d like to receive monthly updates on XPRT-related news and activity, we encourage you to sign up for our XPRT newsletter. It’s completely free, and all you need to do to join the newsletter mailing list is let us know! We won’t publish, share, or sell any of the contact information you provide, and we’ll only send you the monthly newsletter and occasional benchmark-related announcements, such as important news about patches or releases.

If you have any questions about the WebXPRT 5 Preview or the XPRTs in general, please feel free to contact us.

Justin

CrXPRT 2 functionality is ending with ChromeOS 139

Back in January, we discussed the ChromeOS team’s decision to eventually end support for all user-installed Chrome Apps—including CrXPRT 2—upon the release of Chrome 138 in July of this year. As best we can tell, the move is part of their overall strategy of transitioning all support to Chrome extensions and Progressive Web Apps. We knew that after the support cutoff date, we would not be able to publish any fixes or updates for CrXPRT 2, but we weren’t exactly sure how the transition would affect the app’s overall functionality.

We’ve now confirmed that while CrXPRT 2 still functions normally through Chrome 138.0.7204.255 (beta), the app does not launch at all on Chrome Canary 139. Consequently, we expect that stable channel system updates will disable CrXPRT 2 on most systems after Chrome 139 goes live on August 5th. We will initially leave CrXPRT 2 on our site for those who want to use it on older versions of Chrome, but over time we will archive it as an inactive benchmark.

We want to extend our heartfelt thanks to the many people around the world who used CrXPRT 2 for lab evaluations, product reviews, and individual testing over the past several years. We’re grateful for your support! We will update readers here in the blog if we decide to pursue new ChromeOS benchmark development work in the future.

Justin

February 2025 WebXPRT 4 browser performance comparisons

Once or twice per year, we refresh our ongoing series of WebXPRT comparison tests to see if software version updates have reordered the performance rankings of popular web browsers. We published our most recent comparison last June, when we used WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of five browsers—Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera—on a Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 3. When assessing performance differences, it’s worth noting that all the browsers—except for Firefox—are built on a Chromium foundation. In the last round of tests, the scores were very tight, with a difference of only four percent between the last-place browser (Brave) and the winner (Chrome). Firefox’s score landed squarely in the middle of the pack.

Recently, we conducted a new set of tests to see how performance scores may have changed. To maintain continuity with our last comparison, we stuck with the same ThinkPad T14s as our reference system. That laptop is still in line with current mid-range laptops, so our comparison scores are likely to fall within the range of scores we would see from a typical user today. The ThinkPad is equipped with an Intel Core i7-1270P processor and 16 GB of RAM, and it’s running Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2 (22631.4890).

Before testing, we installed all current Windows updates, and we updated each of the browsers to the latest available stable version. After the update process was complete, we turned off updates to prevent any interference with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 five times on each of the five browsers. In Figure 1 below, each browser’s score is the median of the five test runs.

In this round of tests, the gap widened a bit between first and last place scores, with a difference of just over six percent between the lowest median score of 303 (Brave) and the highest median score of 322 (Firefox).

Figure 1: The median scores from running WebXPRT 4 five times with each browser on the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 3.

In this round of tests, the distribution of scores indicates that most users would not see a significant performance difference if they switched between the latest versions of these browsers. The one exception may be a change from the latest version of Brave to the latest version of Firefox. Even then, the quality of your browsing experience will often depend on other factors. The types of things you do on the web (e.g., gaming, media consumption, or multi-tab browsing), the type and number of extensions you’ve installed, and how frequently the browsers issue updates and integrate new technologies—among other things—can all affect browser performance over time. It’s important to keep such variables in mind when thinking about how browser performance comparison results may translate to your everyday web experience.

Have you tried using WebXPRT 4 in your own browser performance comparison? If so, we’d love to hear about it! Also, please let us know if there are other types of WebXPRT comparisons you’d like to see!

Justin

An update on CrXPRT support in ChromeOS

CrXPRT users may remember that back in 2022, we discussed the ChromeOS team’s decision to end formal support for Chrome Apps and instead focus on Chrome extensions and Progressive Web Apps. This decision meant that we would not be able to publish any future fixes or updates for CrXPRT 2, although moving forward, we weren’t sure how it would affect the app’s functionality.

After receiving a lot of feedback regarding their original timeline, the ChromeOS team decided to extend Chrome App support for Enterprise and Education account customers through January 2025. Because we publish CrXPRT through a private BenchmarkXPRT developer account, we assumed at the time that the support extension would not apply to CrXPRT.

Recently, the ChromeOS team released new information about their scheduled support timeline. Now, they plan to end formal support for all user-installed Chrome Apps in July 2025 (Chrome 138). In February 2028, the Chrome 168 release will mark the end of life for all Chrome Apps.

The good news is that—in spite of a lack of formal ChromeOS support over the past couple of years—the CrXPRT 2 performance and battery life tests have continued to run without any known issues. As of today, the app functions normally up through the Beta release of ChromeOS version 132.0.6834.52.

We will continue to run the benchmark on a regular basis to monitor functionality, and we will disclose any future issues here in the blog and on CrXPRT.com. We hope the app will continue to run both performance and battery life tests well into the future. However, given the frequency of Chrome updates, it’s difficult for us to predict how long the benchmark will remain viable.

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

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?