Zig web framework comparison: any two, head to head
zix is quicker than swerver on 22 of the 25 profiles they both run, and behind on 3. On the HTTP/1.1 composite they score 6825 and 4839.
Pick any two of the 4 Zig entries. Requests per second is the best of three runs and the delta is the first column against the second; every row is the same profile at the same connection count, on the same machine. What each profile measures.
| Profile | Conns | swerver req/sec | zix req/sec | Delta | swerver p99 | zix p99 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 4,096 | 3,665,627 | 4,442,329 | -17% | 2.15ms | 1.19ms |
| Pipelined | 4,096 | 23,561,030 | 58,761,616 | -60% | 3.65ms | 1.59ms |
| Short-lived | 4,096 | 2,620,134 | 2,708,192 | -3% | 3.13ms | 1.89ms |
| Latency-10K | 1,024 | 9,983 | 9,980 | +0% | 98.0us | 102.0us |
| Latency-1M | 1,024 | 997,622 | 997,527 | +0% | 176.0us | 153.0us |
| JSON Comp | 4,096 | 407,780 | 1,046,581 | -61% | 28.00ms | 8.60ms |
| JSON Comp | 16,384 | 414,296 | 1,018,808 | -59% | 74.10ms | 23.70ms |
| JSON TLS | 4,096 | 1,502,272 | 1,845,248 | -19% | 65.13ms | 109.34ms |
| Static TLS | 1,024 | 1,101,306 | 339,689 | +224% | 15.30ms | 30.48ms |
| Async DB | 1,024 | 369,867 | 400,444 | -8% | 17.20ms | 20.40ms |
| Baseline | 256 | 3,878,127 | 14,076,613 | -72% | 48.09ms | 17.29ms |
| Baseline | 1,024 | 4,203,408 | 14,090,534 | -70% | 146.87ms | 99.66ms |
| Static | 256 | 1,134,540 | 1,692,045 | -33% | 85.76ms | 60.58ms |
| Static | 1,024 | 1,083,152 | 1,650,640 | -34% | 174.23ms | 169.67ms |
| Baseline (h2c) | 256 | 12,451,341 | 13,956,726 | -11% | 8.43ms | 6.54ms |
| Baseline (h2c) | 1,024 | 12,505,467 | 14,569,901 | -14% | 69.64ms | 58.31ms |
| Baseline (h2c) | 4,096 | 11,606,256 | 13,411,078 | -13% | 192.10ms | 58.21ms |
| JSON (h2c) | 1,024 | 4,526,493 | 6,821,589 | -34% | 41.02ms | 18.67ms |
| JSON (h2c) | 4,096 | 4,409,384 | 6,746,440 | -35% | 180.35ms | 104.64ms |
| Baseline | 64 | 901,515 | 9,086,240 | -90% | 7.11ms | 796us |
| Static | 64 | 406,802 | 595,586 | -32% | 648us | 20.04ms |
| Unary | 256 | 6,790,374 | 7,000,555 | -3% | 15.16ms | 9.47ms |
| Unary | 1,024 | 6,683,122 | 7,030,197 | -5% | 33.50ms | 32.57ms |
| Unary TLS | 256 | 753,772 | 6,962,147 | -89% | 18.02ms | 20.73ms |
| Unary TLS | 1,024 | 3,669 | 6,781,146 | -100% | 48.49ms | 98.54ms |
Common comparisons
swerver vs zix · swerver vs libxev · swerver vs zeemo · zix vs libxev · zix vs zeemo · libxev vs zeemo
Questions
Is swerver faster than zix?
zix is quicker than swerver on 22 of the 25 profiles they both run, and behind on 3. On the HTTP/1.1 composite they score 6825 and 4839. Both run on the same machine, in the same round, against the same profiles.
Is swerver faster than libxev?
libxev is quicker than swerver on 3 of the 4 profiles they both run. On the HTTP/1.1 composite they score 6825 and 3920. Both run on the same machine, in the same round, against the same profiles.
Is swerver faster than zeemo?
zeemo is quicker than swerver on 3 of the 5 profiles they both run, and behind on 2. On the HTTP/1.1 composite they score 6825 and 3773. Both run on the same machine, in the same round, against the same profiles.
Is zix faster than libxev?
zix is quicker than libxev on 2 of the 4 profiles they both run, and behind on 2. On the HTTP/1.1 composite they score 4839 and 3920. Both run on the same machine, in the same round, against the same profiles.
Which Zig framework is fastest overall?
swerver holds the highest HTTP/1.1 composite of the Zig entries, at 6825. The composite is throughput over the whole suite; if a service is one shape of workload, compare that profile on its own in the table above, because the order changes.
Every Zig entry
Results updated · Zig composite ranking · Compare across languages · Other languages · Open the leaderboard