The Best Ad Block Chrome Extensions

Mavs owner Mark Cuban to pay $10M following NBA's sexual harassment investigation

What is the best adblocker extension in your opinion?
If it isn't there, let the mods know. Peter 2 years ago. Failure to do so is likely to result in violation of applicable law that could result in severe monetary and criminal penalties imposed on the violator. It speed up your internet in 2 times by blocking ads and tracking. This is one of the very few objective trials in an important area.

Ad Blockers not tested

The best ad blockers for Chrome

AdBlock Plus will block pop-ups, animated, web mail, banner and tracking ads. You can add the extension to Chrome from this web page. Then you can click Enabled on this site to restore the adds. The AdBlock Plus Options tab also enables you to set up filters for more specific ads and page content and whitelist website domains. Simply Block Ads is simple, yet effective, ad block extension for Chrome. The extension blocks in-site, pop-up, background, text, whole-site and even pre-video adverts, which is something that alternative add-ons might miss.

Press the Add to Chrome button on this extension page to add it to the browser. You can select to allow ads for specific domains or to switch off the extension, without disabling it, to restore ads on all pages. This extension has more customization options than AdBlock Plus, and it also includes third-party filters for users to select from.

To add the extension to Chrome, open this web page and press the Add to Chrome button there. Then press the uBlock Origin button on the toolbar to open its primary options as in the snapshot directly below. Click the Enter element picker mode button, select an image to remove, move the cursor to the bottom right corner of the browser window and press Create to remove the element from page.

The uBlock Origin dashboard also has numerous settings. Aside from adding your own filters with Element picker mode, you can select third-party filters from the filter list shown below. You can also add websites to the Whitelist tab on the dashboard to keep ads on specified sites. AdBlock is an extension with a similar title to AdBlock Plus, but is no way related to it. This is a highly rated add-on for Chrome, Safari, Edge, Opera, Firefox and Internet Explorer that will block most adverts, including those on social media, video websites such as YouTube and web mail.

You can add AdBlock to Google Chrome from this page. Any chance you could do a similar analysis of ad-blocking tools for iOS devices? I would like to thank you for this test, I almost bought AdGuard lifetime license.

Adguard software that you pay for is very different, it can block ads in software across your PC when available and is generally faster than every option here for browsing along with more features. Why was Disconnect not included in these tests?

As we have said before, this is a test for extensions that have a dedicated ad blocking option. I got here because I was looking for a review of Adguard AdBlocker which promises an awful lot on their webpages. It did fairly well against the others but what I was mostly curious about was the actual effectiveness. This would be a much more difficult article to write. That is, how effective is a particular adBlocker against tracking, popups, video ads, anti-adblocker scripts, etc vs the others.

I use Adblock just because it is only ad blocker that can whitelist individual Youtube channels. But there is another ad blocker which I am using these days and it is pretty cool — Bad Ad Johnny.

Excellent and thorough testing! But I will be trying out uBlock Origin and possibly ghostery after seeing what a big performance difference there is. The main difference is in the time it takes for the same, identical websites I visit to load on these two different computers.

The Macbook Pro takes literally a fraction of the time than the W7 does. It almost pains me to open Yahoo Mail while in Slimjet. What say the jury here? Anyone else had pages take too long to come to life because of adblocker usage?

And you have 4 ad blockers which compounds the problem. No while list, total user control, fastest and most complete tracker blocker on the market. Why did you take the overall memory information in Windows and not the RSS size, for example? I do not think your memory measurement adequately represents the efficacy of each tool to handle their activities using the lowest amount of memory.

Also, what was the update interval for both memory and cpu values regarding average calculation and displaying?

Private Working Set is better because it shows the memory used only by the process itself. The results you showed were technically based, but what about the functionality of the different software? Did one block more ads and keep the user safer than another one? Almost all ad blockers rely on the same block lists so they block the same amount of ads.

So in terms of safety from bad ads, they are virtually all the same. Not a comment I expected to see. Everyone at some point either visits such a site intentionally or unintentionally. I am not sure just what your comment is intended to cover anyway. Any site where WOT suggest a poor rating? WOT Web Of Trust has been pulled as of , reportedly because they were selling user browsing info.

Excellent job on stated objective me being impressed and very appreciative. This is one of the very few objective trials in an important area. I think any PC oriented magazine would welcome it. Please consider including a few more products me being curious and self-interested as I use Blur and Disconnect.

As you note for PrivacyBadger, these 3 are more privacy oriented but do overlap functionally to block some ads and I think improve responsiveness. Perhaps strictly outside of scope, but trivially difficult if limited to cursory observations and still interesting.

Please consider expanding the scope to include effectiveness, including privacy measures me being curious, encouraging, and very greedy. AKA, the limitations and further research paragraph. As for the remainder of your copious free time … me be humorously? Thanks for your input. We encountered no major page problems during testing, if we had, they would have been mentioned.

We had to draw the line somewhere for what to include in the test. There are several dozen extensions that can block scripts, which just happen to block ads. Effectiveness in terms of ad blocking is almost identical for all extensions because virtually all are based on Easylist, so they block or miss the same things. Testing privacy is beyond the scope of this article and an entire subject in itself. You did not mention whether blocking caused problems, nor evaluate web page appearance.

Ad blocking is also about privacy. You did not mention how many 3rd party cookies were blocked, etc. Again, thanks for the great info here and over the years. Also thanks to Tom Trottier for his nice list. Unfortunately, combining some of these can effectively disable some. As we made clear in the article, this not about how effective these extensions are concerning privacy and cookie or script blocking.

Something like Privacy Badger was not included because it is not designed to be an ad blocker but a script blocker and privacy tool. Blocking ads is a by product of script blocking and Privacy Badger themselves make this clear in their FAQ.

Other extensions offer finer grain control of what gets loaded: The upside is — no malware delivered by scripts. The sad thing is I would have once thought this unreasonable. Finally, some objective numbers…there is a new adblocker I use in the past 2 weeks adblock ultimate. Though to be fair there are some adblockers which support more filter list formats.

For example uBlock Origin supports hosts files like hpHosts. Several ad blockers support custom lists and so you can easily block using the hpHosts lists or anything else and the results will be the same. Been using uBlock Origin for months now. Glad this article just reaffirmed my decision. Thanks for the article. Very good post, now I would like you to test desktop adblockers like admuncher, adguard premium trial or Adfender. I tried all does other stuff but ublock is much more efficient for me!

They have all sowed everything down after about a month or so of use. I have used various tools to clean everything up cache cleaning, junk file removal, reg. Anybody else had this problem and any chance of longer-term testing of these add-ons? Robert, I know my response comes a while after yours, but I see you were looking for feedback.

I have been using adblockers for many years and all the reputable ones noticeably speed up page load times and browsing in general. The fact that you mention that they slow down your laptop in general is an indication that you have another issue that is causing this problem. The most logical would be that you have a low spec system and that the extra RAM and CPU usage of the adblockers is maxing it out.

It is also possible you may have been infected by some form of malware that is attempting to counteract the effect of the adblocker. Have you tried running Resource Monitor or a similar utility to identify the real cause of the problem? Wayne, some sites do need to be allowed to show ads to load. Never it was a cpu or ram issue. Sometimes they do tricky things. Sometimes a refresh can bypass it, but I think it depends on the way they set up the page load.

I use FireFox Just wanted to say thanks for such a thoroughly researched and extensive article. This was refreshing, keep up the great work! To everyone asking about it: Rating efficiency is very hard especially since a blocker that blocks more might also break more sites.

Would be nice if you could include Karma Blocker if you ever run the test again. Because setting up ad blocking in your router is more of a hassle than installing a browser extension, insights from such a test would be really useful.

But for old PCs, netbooks and smartphones it is crucial. Blocking from a router would be very much hit and miss because there are so many different routers out there and it would be difficult to get get accurate results. On the memory front, there are a lot of smaller form factor devices around these days that run Windows and most of them are coming installed with 2GB of RAM. Even in , memory usage is still critical on a lot of newer devices.

That is just far too much effort as in my own router it would require putting in thousands of blocked addresses or keywords one at a time. It allows you to set up options for list output to suit whatever application you want to throw the list into. I use the dnsmasq preset so I can block ads on my entire home network at the router level. As my router is supplied by and locked to my ISP, I am unable to use a different router. I will never use AdBlock Pro anymore.

Yes, CSS rules are supported. Sorry, this was meant as an answer to Marah Marie at the bottom of the comment section, not sure why this ended at the top. One worthwhile test would be, does the script have a way to deal with sites that refuse to work if they sense an AdBlocker? Some adblockers have ways to get around this. To change just ABP settings is cheating to give it better scores, to change and test all settings in each blocker would take dozens of man hours to test and is simply not possible.

On your other point, we will not be retesting for Firefox 41 as it would then be unfair to not retest for Chrome 45 because it also has some improvements. If we did that there would be multiple retests every few weeks for each new browser release, and that is something we are unable to do.

It is actually an overall performance improvement including page load time and not only memory usage so it is worth a follow-up. Also using the defaults is unfair to ABP because tweaking it and adding more filter lists at least the same as others makes it block more and perform much better.

Furthermore, there are adblockers that does not have any configuration at all. That would be even more unfair…. Ghostery is not an adblocker strictly speaking though it does kill a lot of ads its purpose is to stop tracking scripts.

This deals with the hiding elements of the adblock filters. Some people need this but I could care less. You are right, Ghostery is not a traditional ad blocker and more of an all round privacy blocker. We chose to include it because it can be used as a standalone ad blocker and you can choose only to block ads going through the wizard on setup. That is why Ghostery is in and other privacy and script blockers are out.

As it says in the article, all ad blockers were left at their defaults. If we change a setting for one addon, we have to start changing settings for all of them, and that is definitely a road we were not prepared to go down. I often use AdBlock Plus [ Block Element ] highlighter to remove dancing baloney and filagree that the web page designers implemented regardless of script calls for external advertisements. It provides an array of additional criteria — block or whitelist cookies, css, images, plugins, scripts, XHRs, iframes, etc.

Although the user interface is more time consuming, I suspect the greater selectivity enables a further reduction on browser resources. I have tried uMatrix personally but not for these tests. It is for advanced users only and the author calls it more of a firewall than a simple ad blocker, and you need to know how to use it properly to unblock elements that are causing pages not to load correctly, which there is a fair chance of.

Glad to see you guys doing another article! Was about to remove it from my hotbar for the RSS feed. I use Cyberfox bit , Waterfox bit , Firefox and Chrome for my daily web browsers each has their specific purpose. I retested these sites as I went through the article to see if page loading and website cpu process were similar.

One thing I think is a major difference is the speed of your connection. All but TMZ, I was significantly faster than the readings you had. TMZ actually was spot on with yours lol. However, I was also using a VPN connecting to the Netherlands at that time which made little to no difference upon disabling it. I am, however, going to switch a few browsers around to use microBlock and Ghostery to see if they are any better for what I use the internet for. This was coming from a few review sites.

I see this article serving 2 purposes: The secondary is giving people a look at other options to see if there is any improvement that can be made to their setup.

Specifically one that ranked in the top 3: Some sites show a sizeable difference between where you are and whether you are running the test in peak or off peak hours. Thank you, You have to be careful when running more than one extension that does the same thing because it can actually slow the whole blocking process down. FYI, Firefox 41 currently in beta includes fixes that dramatically improve memory usage with Adblock Plus enabled.

Might be worth a follow-up! Interesting information but until Firefox offers a more accurate way to find out how much memory an extension actually uses, there will be nothing to follow up…. What about measuring site memory usage via about: Also, nightly builds have an experimental about: For example some extensions will show in there as using only a few KB while the Firefox process itself goes up by maybe MB as soon as you enable it.

My choice is Adblock Plus because of the Element Hiding Helper nevertheless it is a resource hog sometimes. Hmm…it seems that Adguard and uBlock both have this feature as well and I may give them a try. Please send a link to this page with an appropriate introduction to all the sites you have tested so that they realize how atrocious their sites are and can look at improving things for themselves and their visitors.

If every site would load in 1 second or so plus the latency impact , we would all be so much more happier with the web. There is always going to be overheads when displaying ads because files are downloaded from a third party. Our site shows about 2 seconds or so is probably close to the smallest difference you can have between showing and not showing ads. If every site loaded in 1 second many would have no images and all would have no ads, but because of that, there would be far fewer sites around, including the good ones….

Thanks for the comparison! If you run another comparison in the future, it would be very helpful to see memory and CPU with no ad blocker.

Inmany cases, these extensions prevent browsers from needing to parse and execute some JavaScript and decode some images. This effect will be bigger on ad-heavy sites. Another factor worth testing is the number of sites broken by the adblock. I tried Ghostery for a while and eventually removed it when I realize it was braking so many sites. Ghostery breaks a ton, and i have to shut it off a lot to get a website to let me chat in it, or to let me use a form that i need to do some bills etc..

Thank you for the breakdown, I really appreciate it. After having installed ABP on a host of family computers we saw consistently faster load times for nearly every site. Ad blocking is a lifesaver in low bandwidth places! The problems you are talking about will be cured by just about any ad blocker, with ads blocked they all reduce the page load time by roughly the same amount, give or take a few KB.

In my experience it is one of the best the best? However, you should be able to edit the config file if you want to modify its default blocklist. These are regex Regular Expression patterns and may frighten off those who are unfamiliar with regex. SilentBlock actually blocks nothing out of the box and you have to learn regex or manually download and install pattern lists just to get it to do anything. This extension is not exactly a blocker, but a deep cleaner tweaker extension, just take a quick looksee…..

I am disappointed the Disconnect plugin did not make into the cut. Ghostery does not block anything by default, and uBlock Origin is also a little fiddly if you also want to block third party tracking. You need to enable more lists. Not very user friendly. These extensions are all ad block first, the rest is an option. Also, Disconnect cannot just block ads alone without configuring every site manually, and that breaks our rule of not changing any configuration options.

The only exception was Ghostery which forces you to go through the wizard on first run, then we could choose just ad blocking. In using Chrome or Firefox…. Personally I use both simply because Ghostery is good at blocking social buttons and widgets but allowing you to enable them temporarily with a click. I only have the social option turned on in Ghostery though. You should probably try one or the other first though to see if it suits your needs, they both block a lot. K9 is a parent control but you can also check that it will block ads.

And then in ABP I checked everything out because if you have the standard filters on, you notice a big difference in speed and that you not have with K9 but I have my own filters and the first is to filter the screen of the dog of K9 out when it filters ads so you do not see anything on the page what you do not want to see. Thanks for the read it was quite interesting, uBlock origin with some extra subscriptions is enough alone to combat ads, malicious websites and trackers usually, in my opinion.

Privacy Badger is not an ad blocker, but primarily a privacy tool. Their code is specifically written to block third party scripts which so happen that ads also uses them. Privacy Badger would be pretty difficult to test in a controlled way since it has not default filter lists and must be trained by visiting different sites and letting it see what third party scripts are being loaded across different domains.

Other considerations