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 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 3:30:57 AM 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

14 sources
Thanks for the comment. I hadn't actually considered that i was "using techempower as a way to boost experimental projects" but i can understand you seeing it that way now that you have said it! =) I've been working on this in my spare time for quite a while and one of the primary goals of the project is to be "fast" out of the box. I've been following and enjoying the Techempower reports since they started and set myself an initial goal of scoring well on it so I can use that as a performance baseline for further work. I've also seen a number of other experimental/early stage frameworks on there and didn't receive any pushback from the very kind folks at Techempower when I submitted it. I was clear with them about what it is: https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/pull/5969. Re. calling it "JavaScript" - you do have a point a
Read the rest
s I am not keen on having to support the full API implemented in browsers. I see this very much as a server side only "toolkit" for folks who want to build fast network servers and other systems software and enjoy using Javascript and being able to take advantage of the amazing v8 engine and the huge base of existing JS code in the wild. Thanks again.
In Why is Javascript in the top 2 of techempower?
Perhaps, however, according to [0]: "The Actix benchmarks which are winning are written at an extremely low level, with manual parsing, hardcoding header values as 'static string literals, ignoring HTTP methods, and basically being fast by skipping all of the work a real-world HTTP server would need to do to be effective" The quote is 9 months old, but I doubt it changed since. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/e7xwma/rust_actix_is_... [1] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...
In Actix Web 3.0
Hmm was just talking with the author of jooby and its benchmark, he pointed out he just copied one of the docker configs [1] from someone else, which explains why a lot of the benchmarks have similar memory profiles. The jooby author also said he deployed this particular framework with as little as 512MB, which sounds reasonable. So a bunch of JVM implementations may be using "java -Xms4g -Xmx4g", so perhaps the results are not so useful, at least when it comes to the JVM. 1: https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...
In tfbvis: Visualizing TechEmpower benchmarks beyond requests per second
I'll agree that raw database queries aren't unheard of, but EF and Dapper are much more suggested (and IMO "realistic") database paths for "asp.net core" additionally, I'm not quite sure that this is the recommended way to return database results: https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast... What I believe is more "realistic" is to: • Use the framework as described: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/tutorials/first... To be fair, I'm picking on aspnet core because I like it so much (via F#). The framework is great, but this gaming of public benchmarks (techempower, benchmarksgame) by "breaking the same rules as everyone else" rather than investing time into making these results more useful is disappointing.
In Framework Benchmarks Round 19
Ed: regarding the benchmark, as best I can tell, the top listing for ruby runs under puma: https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast... PostgreSQL is obviously not written in ruby, but the other components are very much "ruby code". There appears to be c/Java extension for ssl and parsing http, though - but AFAIK the main server is ruby. https://github.com/puma/puma/tree/master/ext/puma_http11 Tangential, but you might enjoy: https://deno.land/v1#http-server-performance > A hello-world Deno HTTP server does about 25k requests per second with a max latency of 1.3 milliseconds. A comparable Node program does 34k requests per second with a rather erratic max latency between 2 and 300 milliseconds. > Deno's HTTP server is implemented in TypeScript on top of native TCP sockets. Node's HTTP server is written in C and exposed
Read the rest
as high-level bindings to JavaScript. We have resisted the urge to add native HTTP server bindings to Deno, because we want to optimize the TCP socket layer, and more generally the op interface.
In How to Fix Slow Code in Ruby
I think the repo with these benchmarks have some really interesting things in them in general. It's really worth taking a peek at some of the implementations. The aspcore platform benchmark does some cool trickery based on whether the test even requires a database using compiler #if directives. Though it seems to be flagged as "realistic approach" Dunno if I agree with that. I think I'm looking at the right code. https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...
In Phoenix LiveDashboard
drenvuk·Jan 5, 2020Recommendation phrase
The reason the rust framework is winning on the fortunes is because of the ecosystem more so than the framework itself. For instance, any database benchmark is going to favor frameworks that have a library that implements pipelining and asynchronicity. The fact that you're not allowed to modify the library unless you want your framework to be labeled a "raw" benchmark increases the benchmarks worth but doesn't come without caveats. The implementer of h20 which is the c server framework/library just below actix in that chart has mentioned something related to this: https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/tree/mast... So rust is "production grade" because its official library handles it for the framework separately. I LOVE these benchmarks because it points out the differences in each ecosystem when you're trying to find the fa
Read the rest
stest thing. I wouldn't have found a bunch of interesting projects without it. If you want to really know about the raw speed, just look at the plaintext bench. The top frameworks are all being limited by the 40(!) gbps connection these guys are running. After picking any one of them the code you write would be the limiting factor.
In Actix Web: Optimization Amongst Optimizations

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.