Firefox vs Google Chrome

Firefox's Quantum engine has made massive strides. It uses a Rust-based parallel CSS engine (Stylo) that utilizes multi-core processors effectively. On macOS, it feels snappy and handles heavy loads well. However, in pure JavaScript benchmarks (like Speedometer 3.0 or JetStream), it often trails slightly behind Chrome's V8 engine. Cold startup times can also be a fraction of a second slower. It is fast enough that users won't notice a lag, but benchmarks show a gap.

Firefox handles tabs efficiently, with a horizontal scroll that keeps tabs readable even when dozens are open. Its unique 'Multi-Account Containers' feature allows users to assign tabs to specific contexts (e.g., Banking, Social, Work) with separate cookie jars, effectively allowing you to log into multiple accounts on the same site simultaneously. However, it lacks a native 'Tab Grouping' feature as slick as Chrome's, relying on add-ons like 'Simple Tab Groups' or 'Tree Style Tab' to match that functionality.

Firefox Sync is secure and private, using end-to-end encryption for your bookmarks, passwords, and open tabs. It works reliably across Mac, iOS, Windows, and Android. The 'Send Tab to Device' feature is handy. However, the iOS version of Firefox is forced to use WebKit (Apple's engine), so the experience is just a skin over Safari, and it doesn't integrate with the OS as deeply as Chrome does with Google's services.

Because Chromium has such a massive market share, some web developers optimize only for Chrome. Firefox handles 99% of the web perfectly, but occasionally, a cutting-edge enterprise tool or a poorly coded legacy site might render oddly or warn that 'this browser is not supported.' Mozilla works hard on compatibility (Web Compat), but they are fighting an uphill battle against a web that is increasingly becoming 'Chrome-only' in practice.