Safari: Adblock vs Adblock Plus?


macrumors 68040
Feb 10, 2008
United States
None, try out uBlock instead. It uses far less resources than either. Check out the benchmarks. I've found Safari using around 300-600 MB of ram with uBlock, as opposed to 900-1.5 GB for Adblock/Adblock Plus.

But if you insist on using Adblock, go with "Adblock" not "Adblock Plus", I've found Plus to be way too buggy and uses more memory using the same lists as "Adblock".


macrumors 68030
Apr 23, 2013
Which extension is better overall at blocking and not slowing the browser down?
Don't use Adblock Plus. The company accepts payments from advertising companies to bypass their filter. Kind of defeats the purpose, no?

As far as I know Adblock does not betray their users in this way.
  • Like
Reactions: BenLava


macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2012
Sydney, Australia
Which extension is better overall at blocking and not slowing the browser down?
I use Glimmerblocker:

It's not a browser plugin, it runs as a local proxy which means it blocks ads for every application which honours the OS X system wide proxy settings. It is configured through a prefpane. This also means you do not need to install multiple blockers for different browsers or worry about which browser versions are supported.

As an added bonus, if you were to point your iPad or other device to the proxy on your Mac, it will also filter ads for them too.

It works very well and is currently using 35MB RAM.


macrumors newbie
Feb 4, 2015
The whitelist in AdBlock Plus can easily be disabled:

Don't use Adblock. It's just a copy of Adblock Plus.
AdBlock covertly moved from an open development model towards hiding changes from its users. Users were neither informed about that decision nor the reasons behind it. The source code archives are only left around to keep pretending that AdBlock is still an open source project, these are hard to find and the project owners are clearly hoping that nobody will be able to extract the individual changes from them.