Like every experiment, we’re aware that there are concerns to address, such as objectivity.īenchmarking ad-filtering performance on different browsers by measuring page load time and memory consumption can be seen as a subjective method, especially since there are different user interfaces and feature sets.

Meanwhile, the other ad blockers continued to display some ads or white spaces on the websites tested. It also accurately filters out annoying ads and elegantly renders a web page, providing an optimal user experience.

The outcome of the experiment shows that Adblock Browser, powered by eyeo Chromium SDK, blocks everything covered by the publicly available filter list, EasyLis–t. In the video above, we compared the ad-filtering engine’s ability in hiding ads and collapsing white spaces. Ultimately, our goal was to compare the quality of ad filtering on different ad-blocking browsers by looking specifically at user experience. Unlike traditional ad blocking, ad filtering enables some nonintrusive ads to be shown to consenting users and is the current most-representative method of today’s users’ browsing experience. We used the most aggressive ad-blocking mode in each browser’s settings to identify the quality of the ad-filtering engine and filter lists used. To answer these questions and better understand the user experience, we conducted a small experiment between the top three ad-blocking browsers* for Android to compare the browsing experience on four different websites. One way we do this is by putting ourselves in the users’ shoes –– what is their browsing experience on mobile? What do they see when surfing the internet? Most importantly, what do they see on an ad-blocking browser? We’re constantly finding ways to improve our solutions and delight our partners and their users. What’s the most significant difference between FAB Adblocker, Brave and Adblock Browser when it comes to ad-filtering quality?Īt eyeo, experimentation and innovation are at the core of what we do.

Ad blocker brave browser