Trackers blocked in the browser - Firefox vs Edge

I did a test.
Identical web pages opened successively.

Firefox - Tracking protection: Strict.
0 trackers blocked:



Edge - Detection Protection - Strict.
18 trackers blocked:



Identical lists in UBO.

More specific tests - Meafarma only
Same trackers blocked - Firefox does not list how many times they have been blocked.
Probably statistics in Firefox are updating slowly:

Firefox:



Edge:



FarmaCosmo:

0 - Trackers blocked by Firefox



3 - Trackers (corresponding to 1 website that should be blocked by Firefox) blocked by Edge:



So it is certain that the trackers blocked or not by the 2 browsers are different.

Firefox specifies better than Edge which categories of trackers are blocked.

It would be interesting to see which browsers, with many more websites, have better blocking performance.

 

Sorry, I didn't follow you.

Do you used uBlock Origin and built-in tracking protection at the same time?

First screen may only show trackers blocked by built-in protection. If tracker is removed (or prevented to be downloaded in first place) by uBlock Origin then it can't be blocked again by built-in tracking protection, I guess.

 

Yes with UBO.
When closing the browser the values reset with both Edge and Firefox.

 

I think for testing purposes you should disable either built-in anti-tracking protection or uBlock Origin addon depending which one you want to check.

 

Hi,
The purpose of this test is to check the blocking of the trackers of the 2 browsers under real conditions (with UBO active).
I do not care if a tracker escaped by Firefox then is caught by UBO.

From my point of view,in the case of FarmaCosmo:

https://www.farmacosmo.it/

Firefox has failed compared to Edge.

It would be interesting to see if other websites experience the opposite situation,thus a failure to block in Edge compared to Firefox.
At the moment,in the tests I have carried out,it has never happened.

 

To test the effectiveness of ad- and tracking blockers usually I visit Rolling Stone – Music, Film, TV and Political News Coverage
Without any ad- and tracking blocking extension/add-on, MS Edge and FF block in strict mode exactly the same two (!) trackers.
When I enable uBlockOrigin, MS Edge blocks the same two, but FF only one.
I didn't expect this behaviour of FF. I always thought that the internal ad- and trackerblocking of the browser had priority.
But for me is much more relevant that the strict blocking in both browsers is very weak.

 

Do you have a source that states it always happens in this order? I think uBlock Origin, especially in Firefox, can block tracker before they are even loaded by browser.

Here is my result from FarmaCosmo:


Clean profile without any non-built-in addons.

Steps:

1. create new Firefox profile,
2. change protection to strict,
3. restart Firefox (button in about: profiles)
   
4. Go to search engine, consent to stuff, search for FarmaCosmo,
5. On FarmaCosmo click allowance for GDPR-related consent options,
6. reload page (refresh) so those trackers that respect GDRP could legally load,
7. scroll down and up to make sure all content was loaded,
   
8. check how many trackers were blocked. In this case it is 1 social media, 3 cross site tracking cookies and 6 from tracking content,
9. open blank tab, close FarmaCosmo. In blank tab navigate to about: protections
10. about: protections informs about a total of 11 blocked

 

You are right I don't know for sure.
But given that only in Firefox,the setting "suspend network activity until all filter lists are loaded" is enabled by default and above all is working compared to chrome-based browsers I think it more than likely.

 

Thanks @Sampei Nihira for testing - The more we actually put those preventions to the metal the better is the understanding which one's, and more importantly, precise settings offer optimum results. This particular specialty rests out of my league, but sure brings to light the difficulties various common browsers are up against and the extensions best equipped to stand out.

 

Right, I've often noticed that. Hence, comparing the number of blocked trackers by Firefox ETP with other browsers doesn't make much sense.

 

In Ublock we trust

 

No,it is not right it is wrong.
Because it is not correct to write that trackers are captured earlier by UBO than FF.
Because in this case Firefox would either have no trackers captured (which is not the case),or they would be as a percentage compared to UBO in very small numbers (also not the case).

 

Better UBO + Browser.

 

In the case of FarmaCosmo, the Zopim tracker (which is blocked by Edge) is not blocked by UBO either:




Obviously with the lists I use.

So the only conclusion is the one I quoted a few days ago.
The trackers blocked by Firefox are different from those that are blocked by Edge.

I personally feel that I should add some privacy lists (specific to my language) to my UBO lists in Firefox,because the ones I use are not sufficient as in Edge.

No I prefer to block Zopim at the general level in UBO (default allowed)

I hope it is of interest to other forum members.

P.S. If you notice a "red" Zopim is just hidden by the Annoyance filter.

 

A 'v2.zopim.com' script is blocked here by uMatrix.

 

I think that the Edge browser itself is the main suspect in regards to tracking.

 

Probably, for those who do not use countermeasures.
But even with Firefox, countermeasures are required as early as when you download the installer...............

I hope you don't open the usual "is Firefox better than...." diatribe would be useless and counterproductive in this thread.

 

Fortunately that's not an issue on Linux.

No, I wont.

 

No. @gorhill once wrote:

Consequently, you cannot know in advance which blocker captures which trackers.

 

In the various websites,the trackers blocked FIRST by Firefox and NOT by UBO are always the same.

Instead of just refuting with written words what has been demonstrated above, post in this thread at least one website where this does not always occur.
I would like to see the same tracker blocked once by Firefox and later after closing and reopening the browser blocked by UBO.

Failing that,I stand by my correct (at least so far) opinion,despite what Mr.Hill will have stated in the past.

Best regards.

 

no biased test as you dont use clean profiles. uBo has always impact, even if you dont see it.

i forgot - it is known that you use jshelter.

clean profiles and a fresh not modified windows 10/11 is important, where any protection from windows is working perfectly. no tweaks, no additional (network) drivers, just "pure".

edge is ok, firefox also, but both target different goals. and edge is using some windows services such as smartscreen while firefox has its safe-list and some others, independent of any OS.

this looks like a-vs-b with touch of bashing against firefox. your intention may be the best, but the results show a different direction which seems not neutral to me.

 

I installed Firefox this past Saturday.
Besides Arkenfox.user.js the only privacy/security extension installed is UBO.
Because no others are needed.

In your opinion,should Firefox behave differently from Edge just because of this?
Are you saying that a browsers security/privacy feature,would be lost just (or it would be compromised ) because there are other extensions installed?


Pure madness!!

 

i dont care what you lately installed, your images do not show a fresh profile without nothing, either Edge and Firefox. so the test is not reproducable.

ofc the have to act different, one is firefox, and the other is chromium inside and ms depending components.

no, i only wrote that uBlock has side effects that are not visible on first view and not with newbie eyes. disabling for pages does not mean its fully off, you need to disable it at all in addons manager.
my answer was only based on the first image with an about page where ubock cant be used. so only bacjkground noise to mention.

your test is more concerning uBo i would say rather than basic features of firefox and edge. so your headline is proposing a browser comparison and not a comparison of ublock origin within 2 different browsers.

what you dismissed is that ublock with chromium based browser is limited with uncloaking. this is a still present feature in ublock for firefox. and although manifest 3 is upcoming for both browsers mozilla will grant not so many limitetations as in chromium based. the result about manifest 3 is not fixed, on both sides.

what else to say. a closer view to your images dont show special prepped pages with trackers, cookies or anything else. just regular pages i also visit (in germany ofc). it is possible to block some collectors but the risk to break pages is raising too.

https://www.medikamente-per-klick.de/

i can use this site without a special setting. my default settings are working like charm.

firefox told me there were 0 scripts to block, i assume that ublock is doing a nice job. at least its very simple - i can analyse pages/sites for tracking, cookies, consent and more - and subsequent filter them to death, or limit the impact and have a fully working site.

concerning big sites like ebay or microsoft pages i really need to whitelist a lot of them otherwise neither ebay or microsoft will work as expected and throw more errors than rules created in ublock.

i cannot compare your used pages in any way because my setup is very different of yours. what i can tell you that trustpilot and zopim are blocked by default as 3-p script, no way. zudassets do not show up here. firefox shows again zero. and this is rational because ublock did the job and left nothing over for firefox. so your conclusion to check what firefox has blocked is the wrong result of your test. so again - your headline is misleading.

forgot - with same settings of ublock in both browsers - and edge will show a higher #, than ofc ublock is doing a weaker job in chromium based browsers. the firefox stats are realtime! no delay!