Reliability
Our reliability test is conducted after loading 40 tabs. We open them all simultaneously and record how many pages require a reload due to broken formatting or missing elements. The best score a browser can achieve here is zero, and the worst is 40.

Once again, Opera shows itself to be the rock-solid option, with only one reload required on each OS. Safari takes second place on Mountain Lion with an average of eight reloads, followed by Firefox in third with ten and Chrome in fourth with a whopping 21 reloads on OS X. The second-place finisher for Windows 7 is IE9 with 12 failures, followed by Chrome and Firefox in a tie for third, each requiring 13 reloads.
Responsiveness
The responsiveness of each browser is gauged by its behavior during the 40-tab memory usage tests. While we're not timing how long each browser can load all 40 tabs, we are looking to see how quickly we can use the browser without scroll lag and other hang-ups while the tabs are still loading.
IE9 is once again the only browser to actually crash during the 40-tab load. Opera again is speediest to become responsive, followed by Firefox, then Chrome. Chrome is noticeably worse on OS X than Windows 7, while Safari is about equal to Firefox. We're calling Opera the winner on both platforms, followed by Firefox and Safari with strong finishes. Chrome is merely acceptable, while IE9 is clearly weak.
Security
BrowserScope Security contains 17 pass/fail security checks.

Chrome takes first place by passing 16 out of the 17 tests. Safari earns second place with 14 out of 17 tests passed. Internet Explorer passes 13 tests to place third, followed by Firefox in fourth place with 12 tests passed. Opera passes 10 of the 17 tests, earning the Norwegian Web browser another last-place finish.
- The Top Four Browsers, Tested And Ranked
- Chrome, Firefox, IE9, Opera, Safari
- Test System Specs And Software Setup
- Test Suite And Methodology
- Start Time
- Page Load Time
- JavaScript Performance
- DOM And CSS Performance
- HTML5 Performance
- Hardware Acceleration Performance
- Plug-In Performance: Flash, Java, Silverlight
- Memory Efficiency
- Reliability, Responsiveness, And Security
- Standards Conformance
- Test Analysis
- OS X And Windows 7 Winners' Circle
When we have more [official] stable 64-bit browsers, I'll definitely do a 64-bit WBGP - including versus their 32-bit counterparts.
Nearly every performance benchmark there is points in that direction. This probably has a lot to do with how much time developers spend optimizing for Windows - after all, Windows holds 90+% of the desktop user base. However, it is interesting that the rift between Windows and OS X is far greater than between Windows and Linux for the core stuff like JS, CSS, DOM, page loads, etc. Plug-ins are another story, they're always much better on Windows than the other two platforms.
(The nice popular ones like ABP, Lazarus, Greasemonkey all have equivalents; some lesser-used plugins like Rikaichan also have ports by now. Only a matter of time!)
as always, a great read.
All versions of Chrome hold up incredibly well cross-platform, if you look back at the two Linux WBGPs, it won there, too. Thanks for reading!
Absolutely, a Windows 8-based WBGP is already in the cards for October.
When we have more [official] stable 64-bit browsers, I'll definitely do a 64-bit WBGP - including versus their 32-bit counterparts.
Testing these browsers at stock doesn't reveal even an eighth of the picture.
btw great work adamovera keep it up man
Interesting idea, so basically a tweaked-out edition of the WBGP, where we use all the tools available to each browser for performance gains... That could work, but I gotta warn you that the next three WBGPs are already decided, so it would probably be real late in the year, or even next year before I could get to it.
Nearly every performance benchmark there is points in that direction. This probably has a lot to do with how much time developers spend optimizing for Windows - after all, Windows holds 90+% of the desktop user base. However, it is interesting that the rift between Windows and OS X is far greater than between Windows and Linux for the core stuff like JS, CSS, DOM, page loads, etc. Plug-ins are another story, they're always much better on Windows than the other two platforms.
The big problem with including the dev channel browsers is the amount of time it takes to produce the article (testing/charts/writing/editing/translating), combined with the tendency of the dev channel to constantly update. Before testing is even completed it's certain that something will update. TBH, the stable channels of Chrome and Firefox are a handful as it is. For example, for this article I had to test 8 browsers (4 on each OS), but I ended up testing 18+ due to OS X, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Flash, and Java updates. Sorry, but I'm just not sure it's even doable in this format. Thanks for reading!
well I wanted to include it in my comment myself but I forgot I wanted to say if the timing allows
My computer is fast enough that it does not really mater what browser I choose.
In my case, ease of use means that I can see what is going on.
I decry the trend towards dumbing down the UI on every program I use.
(I also refuse to call software 'Apps', to me an app is a mini-program on a phone.)
I always turn on all menus, buttons and labels in WaterFox.
BTW: Good point.
Why don't you include WaterFox in your testing?
It is the 64 bit version of FireFox and I am sure that in your speed tests it may do a little better.