Few days ago we've held a tiny contest of three ASP.NET Ajax frameworks. This time, three more contestants await to be compared:
These three above were chosen because the integration of an existing application is as simple as placing a single Ajax Manager on a web form - few other frameworks (and here) were rejected because they are either dead now, force you to use specific set of components or rely on writing client-side javascript code.
The result chart is available here:
- ComfortASP.NET has a terrible requests-per-second ratio. It served only 35 (!) requests per second, while sending 6 and receiving 83 MB of data
- Anthem.NET was able to process 133 request per second, sending 6 and receving 121 MB of data
- Telerik's RAD Ajax did 292 requests per second, sending 7 and receiving 172 MB (!) of data
Gathering all results together, we had 2 non-Ajax contestants: pure Web.Forms application, Javascript version of it and 6 Ajax frameworks: Microsoft's ASP.NET AJAX, Ajaxium, VisualWebGUI, ComfortASP.NET, Anthem.NET and Telerik's RAD Ajax.
Regarding requests-per-second we have following results:
|
| requests-per-second | reference |
| VWG | 422 | 198,1220657 |
| Javascript | 400 | 187,7934272 |
| Telerik | 292 | 137,0892019 |
| ASP.NET AJAX | 222 | 104,2253521 |
| Web.Forms | 213 | 100 |
| Anthem | 133 | 62,44131455 |
| Ajaxium | 111 | 52,11267606 |
| Comfort | 35 | 16,43192488 |
Regarding number-of-bytes-sent we have following results:
|
| sent data | reference |
| Javascript | 1938800 | 24,23560589 |
| VWG | 2066800 | 25,83564589 |
| Ajaxium | 5029800 | 62,87407185 |
| ASP.NET AJAX | 5600600 | 70,00925023 |
| Comfort | 5880400 | 73,50683767 |
| Anthem | 6161400 | 77,01942549 |
| Telerik | 7293200 | 91,16727918 |
| Web.Forms | 7999800 | 100 |
Regarding number-of-bytes-received we have following results:
|
| received data | reference |
| VWG | 23348807 | 29,11700146 |
| Javascript | 37121000 | 46,29153905 |
| Ajaxium | 47756301 | 59,55423272 |
| Web.Forms | 80189600 | 100 |
| Comfort | 83742600 | 104,4307491 |
| Anthem | 121547800 | 151,575516 |
| ASP.NET AJAX | 129531800 | 161,5319194 |
| Telerik | 172294800 | 214,8592835 |
Few comments:
- the overall winner is VWG, however the application had to be completely rewritten in order to run under this framework
- the javascript version did not win (even in the bytes-received test!) and though this may seem surprising, it is caused by the script size
- the Ajaxium, Anthem and Comfort reduce the requests-per-second ratio singificantly. The latter two are able to correctly handle dynamic, non-ajax content sent to the browser
- regarding the requests-per-second, Telerik is significantly better than ASP.NET AJAX, however it downloads huge amout of data comparing to all other frameworks
Please feel free to study these resulsts and pick up your own winner. Thanks again to Krzysiek Owczarek for contributing to this contest.
5 comments:
I'm just curious:
- did you use Telerik RadAjaxManager or RadAjaxPanel for your tests? If you are familiar with Telerik AJAX concept you will probably know that using the manager you can select which control will instantiate ajax and which will be updated on this particular ajax call.
- do you refer to AJAX.NET or ASP.NET AJAX? AJAX.NET is a bit different than ASP.NET AJAX.
- why you didn't use triggers for the UpdatePanel. Without triggers your test will be equivalent to the postback-based one.
- I'm not so sure however it seems that VWG does not deal with important things like ViewState, EventValidation, etc.
- Can you use VWG framework to ajaxify existing ASP.NET Page similar to Telerik RadAjax or Microsoft ASP.NET AJAX?
Vlad
www.telerik.com
Vlad,
1. we used RadAjaxManager with no further enhancements. we've decided to take the simplest route with each framework, and for telerik's this was the simplest method of ajaxing the form
2. thanks for pointing out the naming collision - I've updated the article to correctly name the Microsoft's ASP.NET Ajax. AJAX.NET has been "disqualified" because it relies on writing client-side javascripts.
3. I am sure that using triggers could singificantly reduce the amount of data sent to and from the server, however we've decided that the form's logic is just too complicated and the application of triggers should just require too much caution.
4. I think that vwg does not have to deal with viewstate or event validation because the state is persistent on the application server. thus, even with self-prepared request, you cannot alter it in any way which would be impossible using the web browser as the request source. as it sends your activity to the application server and the server responds with the data used to alter the view, all the data is stored on the application server.
5. no, you cannot ajaxify existing applications easily with vwg. that's its only shortcoming comparing to other ajax frameworks and that's also the reason the contest is not quite fair - we've rewritten the application for vwg and used only ajax managers for other frameworks. I just wanted to know how vwg compares to other, much simpler ways of ajaxifying your web applications.
regarding the telerik's rad ajax - to us it's the real and viable alternative to microsoft's asp.net ajax - telerik works faster and is able to handle few scenarios which confuse microsoft's.
thank you for your comments, keep up your good work on your framework.
Regards,
Wiktor
RE: "no, you cannot ajaxify existing applications easily with vwg."
I believe that, with VWG, you can use "gateway handlers" to, for example, render images, etc... and use VWG apps like AJAX handlers.
Moreover, VWG is, of course, an AJAX implementation and one can define his/her own events, etc... and add them to the framework.
The limitations that I found with VWG were inherited from WinForms (i.e. WPF enabled complex compositions, for example) although I've read that future versions of VWG will enable this type of rendering.
Some of the other limitations of VWG are, for example, the "drag and drop model" which is far too limited; i.e. the DoDragDrop function (part of WinForms) is far more powerful.
Hello Wiktor,
thank you for this research and the effort you put in this. For the reason that this report is round about four years old and VWG came up with a few new versions:
Do you have some current studies? Or have you heard of an actual study like this?
Any information regarding speed comparisons between these frameworks is highly appreciated.
Thank you in advance,
Timo
Timo,
I do not have any current data on this. I guess it's not only VWG which has been updated since then but also I know that at least one of the frameworks does not exist at the moment (Ajaxium).
Thanks for your note,
Regards,
Wiktor
Post a Comment