BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Web-based testing

How we evaluate new WebXPRT workload proposals

A key value of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community is our openness to user feedback. Whether it’s positive feedback about our benchmarks, constructive criticism, ideas for completely new benchmarks, or proposed workload scenarios for existing benchmarks, we appreciate your input and give it serious consideration.

We’re currently accepting ideas and suggestions for ways we can improve WebXPRT 4. We are open to adding both non-workload features and new auxiliary tests, which can be experimental or targeted workloads that run separately from the main test and produce their own scores. You can read more about experimental WebXPRT 4 workloads here. However, a recent user question about possible WebGPU workloads has prompted us to explain the types of parameters that we consider when we evaluate a new WebXPRT workload proposal.

Community interest and real-life relevance

The first two parameters we use when evaluating a WebXPRT workload proposal are straightforward: are people interested in the workload and is it relevant to real life? We originally developed WebXPRT to evaluate device performance using the types of web-based tasks that people are likely to encounter daily, and real-life relevancy continues to be an important criterion for us during development. There are many technologies, functions, and use cases that we could test in a web environment, but only some of them are both relevant to common applications or usage patterns and likely to be interesting to lab testers and tech reviewers.

Maximum cross-platform support

Currently, WebXPRT runs in almost any web browser, on almost any device that has a web browser, and we would ideally maintain that broad level of cross-platform support when introducing new workloads. However, technical differences in the ways that different browsers execute tasks mean that some types of scenarios would be impossible to include without breaking our cross-platform commitment.

One reason that we’re considering auxiliary workloads with WebXPRT, e.g., a battery life rundown, is that those workloads would allow WebXPRT to offer additional value to users while maintaining the cross-platform nature of the main test. Even if a battery life test ran on only one major browser, it could still be very useful to many people.

Performance differentiation

Computer benchmarks such as the XPRTs exist to provide users with reliable metrics that they can use to gauge how well target platforms or technologies perform certain tasks. With a broadly targeted benchmark such as WebXPRT, if the workloads are so heavy that most devices can’t handle them, or so light that most devices complete them without being taxed, the results will have little to no use for OEM labs, the tech press, or independent users when evaluating devices or making purchasing decisions.

Consequently, with any new WebXPRT workload, we try to find a sweet spot in terms of how demanding it is. We want it to run on a wide range of devices—from low-end devices that are several years old to brand-new high-end devices and everything in between. We also want users to see a wide range of workload scores and resulting overall scores, so they can easily grasp the different performance capabilities of the devices under test.

Consistency and replicability

Finally, workloads should produce scores that consistently fall within an acceptable margin of error, and are easily to replicate with additional testing or comparable gear. Some web technologies are very sensitive to uncontrollable or unpredictable variables, such as internet speed. A workload that measures one of those technologies would be unlikely to produce results that are consistent and easily replicated.

We hope this post will be useful for folks who are contemplating potential new WebXPRT workloads. If you have any general thoughts about browser performance testing, or specific workload ideas that you’d like us to consider, please let us know.

Justin

Looking forward to an important WebXPRT milestone

February 28, 2013 was a momentous day for the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community. On that day, we published a press release announcing the official launch of the first version of the WebXPRT benchmark, WebXPRT 2013. As difficult as it is for us to believe, the 10-year anniversary of the initial WebXPRT launch is in just a few short months!

We introduced WebXPRT as a truly unique browser performance benchmark in a field that was already crowded with a variety of measurement tools. Since those early days, the WebXPRT market presence has grown from a small foothold into a worldwide industry standard. Over the years, hundreds of tech press publications have used WebXPRT in thousands of articles and reviews, and the WebXPRT completed-runs counter rolled over the 1,000,000-run mark.

New web technologies are continually changing the way we use the web, and browser-performance benchmarks should evaluate how well new devices handle the web of today, not the web of several years ago. While some organizations have stopped development for other browser performance benchmarks, we’ve had the opportunity to continue updating and refining WebXPRT. We can look back at each of the four major iterations of the benchmark—WebXPRT 2013, WebXPRT 2015, WebXPRT 3, and WebXPRT 4—and see a consistent philosophy and shared technical lineage contributing to a product that has steadily improved.

As we get closer to the 10-year anniversary of WebXPRT next year, we’ll be sharing more insights about its reach and impact on the industry, discussing possible future plans for the benchmark, and announcing some fun anniversary-related opportunities for WebXPRT users. We think 2023 will be the best year yet for WebXPRT!

Justin

How to automate WebXPRT 4 testing

As the number of WebXPRT runs continues to grow, we realize many new WebXPRT users may be unfamiliar with all the features and capabilities of the benchmark. To help inform users about features that might facilitate their testing, we’ve decided to highlight a few WebXPRT features here in the blog. A few weeks ago, we discussed the multiple language options available in the WebXPRT 4 UI. This week, we look at WebXPRT 4 test automation.

WebXPRT 4 allows users to run scripts in an automated fashion. You can control the execution of WebXPRT 4 by appending parameters and values to the WebXPRT URL. Three parameters are available: testtype, tests, and result. Below, you’ll find a description of those parameters and instructions for utilizing automation.

Test type

The WebXPRT automation framework accounts for two test types: (1) the six core workloads and (2) any experimental workloads we might add in future builds. There are currently no experimental tests in WebXPRT 4, so always set the test type variable to 1.

  • Core tests: 1

Test scenario

This parameter lets you specify which tests to run by using the following codes:

  • Photo enhancement: 1
  • Organize album using AI: 2
  • Stock option pricing: 4
  • Encrypt notes and OCR scan using WASM: 8
  • Sales graphs: 16
  • Online homework: 32

To run a single individual test, use its code. To run multiple tests, use the sum of their codes. For example, to run Stocks (4) and Notes (8), use the sum of 12. To run all core tests, use 63, the sum of all the individual test codes (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 = 63).

Results format

This parameter lets you select the format of the results:

  • Display the result as an HTML table: 1
  • Display the result as XML: 2
  • Display the result as CSV: 3
  • Download the result as CSV: 4

To use the automation feature, start with the URL http://www.principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/2021/wx4_build_3_7_3, append a question mark (?), and add the parameters and values separated by ampersands (&). For example, to run all the core tests and download the results, you would use the following URL: http://principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/2021/wx4_build_3_7_3/auto.php?testtype=1&tests=63&result=4

We hope the WebXPRT automation features will make testing easier for you. If you have any questions about WebXPRT or the automation process, please feel free to ask!

Justin

The versatility of XPRT benchmarks

We’ve designed each of the XPRT benchmarks to assess the performance of specific types of devices in scenarios that mirror the ways consumers typically use those devices. While most XPRT benchmark users are interested in producing official overall scores, some members of the tech press have been using the XPRTs in unconventional, creative ways.

One example is the use of WebXPRT by Tweakers, a popular tech review site based in The Netherlands. (The site is in Dutch, so the Google Translate extension in Chrome was helpful for me.) As Tweakers uses WebXPRT to evaluate all kinds of consumer hardware, they also measure the sound output of each device. Tweakers then publishes the LAeq metric for each device, giving readers a sense of how loud a system may be, on average, while it performs common browser tasks.

If you’re interested in seeing Tweakers’ use of WebXPRT for sound output testing firsthand, check out their Apple MacBook Pro M2, HP Envy 34 All-in-One, and Samsung Galaxy Book 2 Pro reviews.

Other labs and tech publications have also used the XPRTs in unusual ways such as automating the benchmarks to run during screen burn-in tests or custom battery-life rundowns. If you’ve used any of the XPRT benchmarks in creative ways, please let us know! We are interested in learning more about your tests, and your experiences may provide helpful information that we can share with other XPRT users.

Justin

WebXPRT passes the million-run milestone!

We’re excited to see that users have successfully completed over 1,000,000 WebXPRT runs! If you’ve run WebXPRT in any of the 924 cities and 81 countries from which we’ve received complete test data—including newcomers Bahrain, Bangladesh, Mauritius, The Philippines, and South Korea —we’re grateful for your help. We could not have reached this milestone without you!

As the chart below illustrates, WebXPRT use has grown steadily since the debut of WebXPRT 2013. On average, we now record more WebXPRT runs in one month than we recorded in the entirety of our first year. With over 104,000 runs so far in 2022, that growth is continuing.


For us, this moment represents more than a numerical milestone. Developing and maintaining a benchmark is never easy, and a cross-platform benchmark that will run on a wide variety of devices poses an additional set of challenges. For such a benchmark to succeed, developers need not only technical competency, but the trust and support of the benchmarking community. WebXPRT is now in its ninth year, and its consistent year-over-year growth tells us that the benchmark continues to hold value for manufacturers, OEM labs, the tech press, and end users like you. We see it as a sign of trust that folks repeatedly return to the benchmark for reliable performance metrics. We’re grateful for that trust, and for everyone that’s contributed to the WebXPRT development process throughout the years.

We’ll have more to share related to this exciting milestone in the weeks to come, so stay tuned to the blog. If you have any questions or comments about WebXPRT, we’d love to hear from you!

Justin

Exploring the WebXPRT 4 results viewer

Now that WebXPRT 4 is live, we want to remind readers about the features of the WebXPRT 4 results viewer. We’re excited about this new tool, which we view as an ongoing project that we will expand and improve over time. The viewer currently has over 100 test results, and we’re just getting started. We’ll continue to actively populate the viewer with the latest PT-curated WebXPRT 4 results for the foreseeable future.

The screenshot below shows the tool’s default display. Each vertical bar in the graph represents the overall score of a single test result, with bars arranged from lowest to highest. To view a single result in detail, the user hovers over a bar until it turns white and a small popup window displays the basic details of the result. Once the user clicks to select the highlighted bar, the bar turns dark blue, and the dark blue banner at the bottom of the viewer displays additional details about that result.

In the example above, the banner shows the overall score (227), the score’s percentile rank (98th) among the scores in the current display, the name of the test device, and basic hardware disclosure information. Users can click the Run info button to see the run’s individual workload scores.

The viewer includes a drop-down menu to quickly filter results by major device type categories, and a tab that allows users to apply additional filtering options, such as browser type, processor vendor, and result source. The screenshot below shows the viewer after I used the device type drop-down filter to select only laptops.

The screenshot below shows the viewer as I use the filter tab to explore additional filter options, such browser type.

The viewer also lets users pin multiple specific runs, which is helpful for making side-by-side comparisons. The screenshot below shows the viewer after I pinned four runs and viewed them on the Pinned runs screen.

The screenshot below shows the viewer after I clicked the Compare runs button: the overall and individual workload scores of the pinned runs appear as a table.

We’re excited about the WebXPRT 4 results viewer, and we want to hear your feedback. Are there features you’d really like to see, or ways we can improve the viewer? Please let us know, and send us your latest test results!

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?