BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Tag Archives: Firefox

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

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

Comparing the WebXPRT 4 performance of five popular browsers

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

Comparing the performance of popular browsers with WebXPRT 4

If you’ve been reading the XPRT blog for a while, you know that we occasionally like to revisit 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 April, when we used WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of five browsers on the same system.

For this round of tests, we used a Dell XPS 13 7930, which features an Intel Core i3-10110U processor and 4 GB of RAM, running Windows 11 Home updated to version 22H2 (22621.1105). 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, Edge was the clear winner, with a 2.2 percent performance advantage over Chrome. Firefox came in last, about 3 percent slower than Opera, which was in the middle of the pack. With updated versions of the browsers, the only change in rank order was that Brave moved into a tie with Opera.

While the rank order from this round of tests was very similar to the previous round, we did observe two clear performance trends: (1) the range between high and low scores was tighter, dropping from a difference of 7.8 percent to 4.3 percent, and (2) every browser demonstrated improved performance. The chart below illustrates both trends. Firefox showed the single largest score improvement at 7.8 percent, but the performance jump for each browser was considerable.

Do these results mean that Microsoft Edge will always provide a speedier 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 translate to your everyday experience.

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

Justin

Using WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of popular browsers

From time to time, we like to run 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 October, when we used WebXPRT 3 to compare Windows 10 and Windows 11 browser performance on the same system. Now that WebXPRT 4 is live, it’s time to update our comparison series with the newest member of the XPRT family.

For this round of tests, we used a Dell XPS 13 7930, which features an Intel Core i3-10110U processor and 4 GB of RAM, running Windows 11 Home updated to version 21H2 (22000.593). We installed all current Windows updates and tested on a clean system image. After the update process completed, we turned off updates to prevent them from interfering with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 three times each across five browsers: Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera. The posted score for each browser is the median of the three test runs.

In our previous round of tests with WebXPRT 3, Google Chrome narrowly beat out Firefox in Windows 10 and Windows 11 testing, but the scores among three of the Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, and Opera) were close enough that most users performing common daily tasks would be unlikely to notice a difference. Brave performance lagged by about 7 percent, a difference that may be noticeable to most users. This time, when testing updated versions of the browsers with WebXPRT 4 on Windows 11, the rankings changed. Edge was the clear winner, with a 2.2 percent performance advantage over Chrome. Firefox came in last, about 3 percent slower than Opera, which was in the middle of the pack. Performance from Brave improved to the point that it was no longer lagging the other Chromium-based browsers.

Do these results mean that Microsoft Edge will always provide you with a speedier web experience? A device with a higher WebXPRT score will probably feel faster during daily use than one with a lower score. For comparisons on the same system, however, the answer depends in part on the types of things you do on the web, how the extensions you’ve installed affect performance, how frequently the browsers issue updates and incorporate new web technologies, and how accurately each browser’s default installation settings reflect how you would set up that browser for your daily workflow.

In addition, browser speed can increase or decrease significantly after an update, only to swing back in the other direction shortly thereafter. OS-specific optimizations can also 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 translate to your everyday experience.

Do you have insights you’d like to share from using WebXPRT to compare browser performance? Let us know!

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?