HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
TechEmpower
FrameworkBenchmarks
C++2013–2026
TechEmpower / FrameworkBenchmarks · Archived

FrameworkBenchmarks

Source for the TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks project

143Distinct people
247Mentions
3Explicit recommenders
8.1KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Source for the TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks project

GitHub

Where it is used

  • ASP.NET Core — ASP.NET Core used the TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks as a focus for performance work. Microsoft prioritized improving ASP.NET’s performance in these benchmarks. Source
  • Benchmarks for ASP.NET Core — Benchmarks for ASP.NET Core includes scenarios from the TechEmpower Web Framework Benchmarks in its benchmarking suite. Source

What people are saying

Sorry, I should have been more precise. I am very, very familiar with the TechEmpower benchmarks and I first learned Java around SE 5, right after they switched from 1.x…

AaronFriel used a recommendation phrase. 3 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 7:02:50 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year247 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-03-28 15:05:31 UTC to 2026-03-24 12:37:38 UTC.

02550751002013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 106 mentions; 2 submissions, 104 comments20132014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 20 mentions; 0 submissions, 20 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 0 submissions, 8 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 0 submissions, 8 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 0 submissions, 9 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 0 submissions, 10 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 0 submissions, 14 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 25 mentions; 0 submissions, 25 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 0 submissions, 14 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 15 mentions; 0 submissions, 15 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 1 submissions, 7 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 2 submissions, 2 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC1062104
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC20020
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC808
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC808
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC909
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC10010
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14014
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC25025
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14014
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC15015
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC817
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC422

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 13, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
Welcome to TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks (TFB) If you're new to the project, welcome! Please feel free to ask questions here. We encourage new frameworks and contributors to ask questions. We're here to help! This project provides representative performance measures across a wide field of web application frameworks. With much help from the community, coverage is quite broad and we are happy to broaden it further with contributions. The project presently includes frameworks on many languages including Go, Python, Java, Ruby, PHP, C#, F#,Clojure, Groovy, Dart, JavaScript, Erlang, Haskell, Scala, Perl, Lua, C, and others. The current tests exercise plaintext responses, JSON serialization, database reads and writes via the object-relational mapper (ORM), collections, sorting, server-side templates, and XSS counter-measures. Future tests will exercise other components and greater computation. Read more and see the results of our tests on cloud and physical hardware. For descriptions of the test types that we run, see the test requirements section. If you find yourself in a directory or file that you're not sure what the purpose is, checkout our file structure in our documentation, which will briefly explain the use of relevant directories and files. Quick Start Guide To get started developing you'll need to install docker or see our Quick Start Guide using vagrant Clone TFB. $ git clone https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks.git Change directories $ cd FrameworkBenchmarks Run a test. $ ./tfb --mode verify --test gemini Explanation of the ./tfb script The run script is pretty wordy, but each and every flag is required. If you are using windows, either adapt the docker command at the end of the ./tfb shell script (replacing ${SCRIPT_ROOT} with /c/path/to/FrameworkBenchmarks), or use vagrant. The command looks like this: docker run -it --rm --network tfb -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock -v [FWROOT]:/FrameworkBenchmarks techempower/tfb [ARGS] -it tells docker to run this in 'interactive' mode and simulate a TTY, so that ctrl+c is propagated. --rm tells docker to remove the container as soon as the toolset finishes running, meaning there aren't hundreds of stopped containers lying around. --network=tfb tells the container to join the 'tfb' Docker virtual network The first -v specifies which Docker socket path to mount as a volume in the running container. This allows docker commands run inside this container to use the host container's docker to create/run/stop/remove containers. The second -v mounts the FrameworkBenchmarks source directory as a volume to share with the container so that rebuilding the toolset image is unnecessary and any changes you make on the host system are available in the running toolset container. techempower/tfb is the name of toolset container to run A note on Windows Docker expects Linux-style paths. If you cloned on your C:\ drive, then [ABS PATH TO THIS DIR] would be /c/FrameworkBenchmarks. Docker for Windows understands /var/run/docker.sock even though that is not a valid path on Windows, but only when using Linux containers (it doesn't work with Windows containers and LCOW). Docker Toolbox may not understand /var/run/docker.sock, even when using Linux containers - use at your own risk. Quick Start Guide (Vagrant) Get started developing quickly by utilizing vagrant with TFB. Git, Virtualbox and vagrant are required. Clone TFB. $ git clone https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks.git Change directories $ cd FrameworkBenchmarks/deployment/vagrant Build the vagrant virtual machine $ vagrant up Run a test $ vagrant ssh $ tfb --mode verify --test gemini Add a New Test Either on your computer, or once you open an SSH connection to your vagrant box, start the new test initialization wizard. vagrant@TFB-all:~/FrameworkBenchmarks$ ./tfb --new This will walk you through the entire process of creating a new test to include in the suite. Resources Official Documentation Our official documentation can be found in the wiki. If you find any errors or areas for improvement within the docs, feel free to open an issue in this repo. Live Results Results of continuous benchmarking runs are available in real time here. Data Visualization If you have a results.json file that you would like to visualize, you can do that here. You can also attach a runid parameter to that url where runid is a run listed on tfb-status like so: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=test&runid=fd07b64e-47ce-411e-8b9b-b13368e988c6. If you want to visualize them or compare different results files on bash, here is an unofficial plaintext results parser Contributing The community has consistently helped in making these tests better, and we welcome any and all changes. Reviewing our contribution practices and guidelines will help to keep us all on the same page. The contribution guide can be found in the TFB documentation. Join in the conversation in the Discussions tab, on Twitter, or chat with us on Freenode at #techempower-fwbm.
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

106 sources
Indeed. In our tests, the plain Rack implementation is extremely impressive, but that is probably because there is so little Ruby code being run [1]. By contrast, the Rails implementation on JRuby is just a bit better than plain Ruby, but that is an improvement versus our previous rounds that were not using TorqBox. Previously, we had been using JRuby deployed on Resin, and the results put that JRuby+Rails combination slightly slower than plain Ruby+Rails. For what it's worth, Resin is fast as far as Java Servlet containers go. Since TorqBox/TorqueBox 3 is very new, I don't suspect it's being used much yet. [1] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...
In Is Ruby Fast Yet?
There is a very simple reason for this: we do not yet have a test that is designed to include idling. One of the future test types [1], number 12 on the list, is designed to allow the request to idle while waiting on an external service. Until we have such a test type, there is no value in exercising higher concurrency levels. Outside of a few frameworks that have systemic difficulty utilizing all available CPU cores, all tests are fully CPU saturated by the existing tests. With that condition, additional concurrency would only stress-test servers' inbound request queue capacity and cause some with shorter queues to generate 500 responses. Even at our 256 concurrency (maximum for all but the plaintext test), many servers' request queues are tapped out and they cope with this by responding with 500s. The existing tests are all about pro
Read the rest
cessing requests as quickly as possible and moving onto the next request. When we have a future test type that by design allows requests to idle for a period of time, higher concurrency levels will be necessary to fully saturate the CPU. Presently, the Plaintext test spans to higher concurrency levels because the workload is utterly trivial and some frameworks are not CPU constrained at 256 concurrency on our i7 hardware. As for the EC2 instances, their much smaller CPU capacity means the higher-concurrency tests are fairly moot. If you switch to the data-table for Plaintext, you can see that the higher concurrency levels are roughly equivalent to 256 concurrency on EC2. For example, jetty-servlet on EC2 m1.large: 256 concurrency: 51,418 1,024 concurrency: 44,615 4,096 concurrency: 49,903 16,384 concurrency: 50,117 The EC2 m1.large virtual CPU cores are saturated at all tested concurrency levels. jetty-servlet on i7: 256 concurrency: 320,543 1,024 concurrency: 396,285 4,096 concurrency: 432,456 16,384 concurrency: 448,947 The i7 CPU cores are not saturated at 256 concurrency, and reach saturation at 16,384 concurrency. We are not against high-concurrency tests; we are just not interested in high-concurrency tests where they would add no value. We're trying to find where the maximum capacity of frameworks is, not how frameworks behave after they reach maximum capacity. We know that they tend to send 500s after they reach maximum capacity. That's not very interesting. All that said, once we have an environment set up that can do continuous running of the tests, I'll be more amenable to a wider variety of test variables (such as higher concurrency for already CPU-saturated test types) because the amount of time to execute a full run will no longer matter as much. [1] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/issues/13...
In Web Framework Benchmarks - Round 8
There have been a group of us -- consistently pushing for exactly this. The maintainers of the benchmark are exceptional resistant to this idea... https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/issues/49 ... https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/issues/36 ... https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/issues/48 ... there are even more issues asking for concurrency increase, just search for concurrency. It it silly that such an rich and awesome set of benchmarks never pushes on concurrency, one of the major points of failure "in the wild" -- more common as you become the go-between for your users and some set of APIs -- users stack up on one side, waiting connections stack up on the other.
In Web Framework Benchmarks - Round 8
It's interesting to compare what the code looks like. CPPSP (C++ Server Pages) which is putting up ridiculous numbers... here is the Single Query test: https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast... It's quite different from the more typical implementations, where they all sort of look the same... (Go) https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast... (NodeJS) https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast... (Gemini) https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast... Also interesting to compare it to C# / HttpListener... which would benefit from moving all the framework code out into a separate library; (C#/HTTP.sys) https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...
In Web Framework Benchmarks - Round 8
I've been following these for most of the rounds, and Go has been improving impressively. Whether that's because of improvements in the language itself or a more zealous crowd sending pull requests, I don't know, but it made me want to try go, so I did. It's not as comforting as the scripting (PHP, Python, JS) languages I'm used to. Having no REPL and having to think about types takes a bit more getting used to than I thought (arrays vs slices/maps, and having no REPL). I find having a quick build script (mine's in vim) so you can compile+run and go back to the code quickly helps a lot. Also, http://play.golang.org/ isn't too shabby either. It would be fun to see this project (https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks) become more and more popular, with formidable developers squeezing out performance from their framework of choic
Read the rest
e.
In Web Framework Benchmarks - Round 8

Showing the 15 most recent of 106 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.