And similarly for Firefox with Tracking Protection turned on. The speed gains come from reducing the amount that's downloaded and rendered or executed:
You can set Firefox's Tracking Protection to "always" so it's on all the time, inside and outside of private browsing mode.
Buy a $35 Raspberry Pi and setup Pi-hole; now all of your browsers are fast, as well as your mobile phones, TVs, and other devices.
This is done for all devices on my network under my control. Needless to say, with the Pi-hole and other settings, speed and bandwidth are great. Highly recommended.
From the FAQ, this is just chromium + an ad blocker + something called Brave Payments that's suppose to support publishers with micropayments.. and there's an ad system you can opt into (https://basicattentiontoken.org/).
It seems to me that the last two are what's unique.. I think they would have greater success by refocusing on those and just developing plugins for Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. Getting everyone to install a browser seems like an uphill battle.
I'm not a big fan of how they calculate load time. Usually you'll start interacting with the website before every single external resource loads (comments, Facebook integration, tracking scripts, etc.). Also, they should be comparing against Chrome/Safari with adblockers. Comparing the load times of one browser blocking the majority of the data downloaded vs one browser downloading everything will be very different regardless of what you're using.
The browser indeed is fast to load websites, but in my experience it is still a bit in the beta stage. Also I'm surprised how many websites these days just work on Chrome and nothing else! We're back to IE6 folks.
They compared a browser with ad blocking with one without it. Of course it's faster not to load ads.
Flagged. You can't just not load the asynchronous assets that don't affect how the page is displayed and then claim your browser is 8x as fast.
Time.com takes 98 seconds to load in Chrome? Well that’s something.
I wonder if there's an underlying reason for the Fox news benchmark being the fastest. If page load time is largely determined by quality/quantity of ads, is Fox News serving the "best" ads to make their website faster? Or is their average user using a computer with less network bandwith and computing power, thus forcing them to lower ad loading time to present a reasonable user experience.
From my testing it was very interesting but the advertising part of it was odd, and also it crashed too often.
Personally after reading the page what I take is that the browser is irrelevant unless I'm in the USA
"Major news sites". Nobody goes to those anymore - they're too crowded.
I love Brave, but my main beef is that when you download a torrent, who know where that file is actually stored on your file system....?
My RSS feed loads even faster still.
What's the dev stack on this?
Not this news site I bet...
This is completely credible if it has built in adblocking.
I have been using Brave more and more. I am growing to love it.
It’s basically impossible to get an idea of global usage however because it does such a good job of not letting servers know you’re using it. It just looks like Chrome.