Category: Battles

Facebook app vs Facebook web

Reading Time: 3 minutes

For this week’s battle, we are comparing the Facebook application with its web version on Chrome. Note that the measurements were taken from an account connected to the social network.

L’application Facebook created in 2014 and founded by Mark Zuckerberg is an online social network that allows its users to post images, photos, videos, files and documents, exchange messages, join and create groups and use a variety of applications. In 2017, the social network had more than 2.1 billion subscribers.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, on this side it is the web version of Facebook (2.48 mAh) which wins the first round by consuming 30% less than the application (3,28 mAh). During the second round which corresponds to the usage scenario, it is the application version (10.13 mAh) which leads to that of the web (21.52 mAh) with a energy consumption lower than 53%. To put an end to this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. The web version displays a consumption of less than 30% for the inactivity phase in the foreground but is the most consuming side of the inactivity phase in the background with 3% more than the application version.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

It’s the web version of Facebook that wins this match. The Facebook application is the best in terms of energy consumption, with an overall score of 14.06 mAh to 26.33 mAh, i.e. 39% less battery consumption compared to its web version. However, the web version on Chrome displaying Facebook consumes 71% less data on the user scenario side.

If we project the journey for one minute in carbon impact, the Facebook application consumes 1.42 gEqCO2 or the equivalent of 12.71 meters made in a light vehicle against 1.06 gEqCO2 for the web version or the equivalent 9.48 meters. It is therefore the web version of Facebook that should be preferred!

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore gradeApp weighting (MB)Exchanged data (MB)Memory consumption (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)Carbon Impact (gEqCO2)
Facebook269.0.0.50.1275 000 000 000+4.322712.56321.4516.061.42
Facebook via Chrome81.0.4044.1385 000 000 000+4.32207.35781.8126.331.06

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, timeline scrolling). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

The Carbon Impact calculation is based on a projection according to the OneByte methodology of the Shift Project for the server and network part. Assumption calculated according to network and datacenter impact in France, for network connectivity 50% Wi-Fi, 50% mobile network, device life based on 500 full charge / discharge cycles.


Retrouvez la battle de la semaine dernière : Petit Bamboo vs Meditopia Des idées de battles ? Contactez-nous !

Petit Bamboo vs Meditopia

Reading Time: 3 minutes

For this special stay-at-home battle, two online meditation apps will oppose: Petit Bamboo vs Meditopia.

In the left corner Petit Bamboo, application created in 2014 which has more than 5 million active users and which is also a French leader app in meditation. The app is also available in German or Spanish.

In the right corner Meditopia, a French meditation and mental well-being application with more than 3 million users worldwide. The company was created in 2017 and claims to be the best French meditation application.

The weighting

At weighing Meditopia is the heavier application with a weight of 61,7 MB. Its opponent Petit Bamboo is lighter with a weight of 51,3 MB, or 17% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application,  Petit Bamboo (2,5 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 34% less than his opponent Meditopia (3,8 mAh). In the second round that corresponds to the use scenario,  Petit Bamboo (6,1 mAh) still leads to Meditopia (7,6 mAh) with a 20% lower consumption. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent.  Petit Bamboo is still the leader of the battle with a consumption of less than 23% for the background inactivity phase and 3% for the foreground inactivity phase.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

The Petit Bamboo application won this match with an overall score of 11.4 mAh to 14.8 mAh, or 23% less battery consumption compared to its opponent Meditopia. If we project the journey for one minute in carbon impact, the Petit Bamboo application consumes 0.11 gEqCO2 or the equivalent of 1 meter made in a light vehicle against 3.82 gEqCO2 for Meditopia, or the equivalent of 34 meters.

However, the two applications are different in regard to the data management. Indeed, Petit Bamboo forces downloading programs for listening while Meditopia does not. Thus, Meditopia consumes 36.5 MB of data during the user scenario, where Petit Bamboo consumes only 222 KB. When downloading programs on the Petit Bamboo side, the storage space suffers.

The choice is difficult: if your priority is to consume less battery, opt for Petit Bamboo application especially if you are one of the users who have an expensive data plan or a bad network connection. Prefer Meditopia if your storage space is precious to you.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore gradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data scenario (MB)Memory consumption scenario (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Petit Bamboo3.7.51 000 000+4.751.30.22230311.4
Meditopia3.10.41 000 000+4.561.736.556914.8

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Meditopia has a consumption equivalent to that of a video games app such as Clash of Clan. As for Petit Bamboo, its consumption is similar to a social app app such as Snapchat. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, first meditation program). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.


Read the previous battle : 7 Minutes Workout vs Home Workout. Any battle ideas? Contact-us!

7 Minutes Workout vs Home Workout

Reading Time: 3 minutes

For this special “stay at home” battle, two applications offering full-body workout will oppose:  7 Minutes Workout vs Home Workout.

In the left corner 7 Minutes Workout, the application, which has more than 3,000,000 users, offers sports training lasting 7 minutes based on the HICT (high intensity training circuit).

In the right corner Home Workout, app part of the Leap Fitness Group which offers daily exercise routines for all major muscle groups.

The weighting

At weighing Home Workout is the most caloric application with a weight of 43 MB. The 7 Minutes Workout application is 14% lighter with a weight of 37 MB.

The fight

The athletes are getting ready to compete on a full-app challenge program!

The first part of the program naturally consists of observing the launch phase (or warm-up) of the application. 7 Minutes Workout (1,71 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 24% less than its opponent Home Workout (2,25 mAh). During the second round which corresponds to the scenario of the user journey (carrying out a beginner sports program), it is always 7 Minutes Workout (5,61 mAh) which leads to Home Workout (6,92 mAh) with lower consumption by 19%. To put an end to this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds to observe the rest phases of each opponent. While we are at the stretching stage, Home Workout takes over on 7 Minutes Workout by consuming 18% less in the inactivity stage in the foreground. The applications are neck and neck for the inactive phase in the background, however 7 Minutes Workout takes over by consuming 6% less than its opponent!

The bell rings! End of training!

The winner

Without any surprie, the 7 Minutes Workout app won this match with an overall score of 9,48 mAh to 11,19 mAh, or 15% less battery consumption compared to its opponent Home Workout. Note that 7 Minutes Workout is also less consumer in terms of data exchanged, 16 KB against 2,8 MB for Home Workout.

If we project the journey for one minute in carbon impact, the 7 Minutes Workout application consumes 0,10 gEqCO2 or the equivalent of 0.88 meters performed in a light vehicle against 0,39 gEqCO2 for Home Workout or the equivalent of 3.51 meters.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore Grade Application weight (MB) Exchanged data scenario (KB) Memory consumption scenario (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
7 Minutes Workout1.363.111 10 000 000+4,8370.0162799,48
Exercices à la maison1.0.42 50 000 000+4,8432.837711,19

On a 1-minute usage scenario, 7 Minutes Workout’s energy consumption is equivalent to a direct messaging application such as Line. As for Home Workout, its consumption is similar to an application such as a social network such as Facebook Like. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications) .

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, search for a workout, workout exercices). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

The Carbon Impact calculation is based on a projection according to the OneByte methodology of the Shift Project for the server and network part. Assumption calculated according to network and datacenter impact in France, for network connectivity 50% Wi-Fi, 50% mobile network, device life based on 500 full charge / discharge cycles.

Marmiton vs 750g

Reading Time: 3 minutes

For this special “stay at home” battle, two applications offering cooking recipes will oppose: Marmiton et 750g.

In the left corner Marmiton, a French application launched in 2000 which lists more than 71,000 cooking recipes. Marmiton also has 12.8 million unique visitors each month.

In the right corner 750g, created in 2010, is the second site offering recipes and culinary advice the most visited in France (8 million unique visitors each month). This site and application offers more than 80,000 recipes.

The weighting

At weighing 750g is the most caloric application with a weight of 90 MB. The Marmiton application is 61% lighter with a weight of 56 MB, which makes it still a relatively heavy application.

The fight

The fighters are getting ready to go on the grill!

In the first part of the match which naturally consists in observing the launch phase of the application, 750g (2.75 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 7% less than its opponent Marmiton (2.93 mAh). In the second round that corresponds to the use scenario (search for a chocolate fondant recipe), it is always 750g (7.69 mAh) which leads to Marmiton (10.48 mAh) with a lower consumption of 36%. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. While we are at the tableware stage, the two applications consume in an equivalent manner for the observation phase in the foreground (1.24 mAh). Nevertheless, in the observation phase in the background, Marmiton is in the lead with 14% less consumption.

The timer sounds, end of cooking for our two applications!

The winner

Without any surprise, the 750g application wins this match with an overall score of 12.6 mAh to 15.4 mAh, i.e. 18% less battery consumption compared to its opponent Marmiton, for whom the check is salty… Note that 750g is also less consumer in terms of data exchanged, 286 KB against 693 KB on the side of Marmiton.

Note that these two applications are particularly rich in elements listed by Exodus Privacy as falling under tracking and analytics tools: 11 for Marmiton, 17 for 750g… It makes people squint on your plate.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApplication weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory consumption (MB)Energy Consumption(mAh)
Marmiton5.2.43 5 000 000+4,59069364215,47
750g4.2.6 1 000 000+4,45628633912,63

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Marmiton’s energy consumption is equivalent to a navigation application such as Google Chrome. As for 750g, its consumption is similar to an application such as a social network such as Instagram. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, search for a recipe). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Babbel vs Duolingo

Reading Time: 3 minutes

For this week’s battle, two online language learning apps will oppose: Babbel vs Duolingo.

In the left corner Babbel, a paid online language learning app created in 2007 in Berlin. When it was founded, the german startup was the first company to offer an online language learning service. Today, Babbel offers learning 14 languages.

In the right corner Duolingo, created in 2011, the application also offers language learning, but it is free of charge. Duolingo offers a richer catalog than Babbel’s: 37 languages.

The weighting

At weighing Babbel is the heavier application with a weight of 90 MB. Its opponent Duolingo is lighter with a weight of 56 MB, or 61% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, Babbel (1.5 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 25% less than his opponent Duolingo (2 mAh). In the second round that corresponds to the use scenario, Babbel (13.5 mAh) still leads to Duolingo (19.5 mAh) with a 31% lower consumption. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. Babbel is still the leader of the battle with a consumption of less than 34% for the background inactivity phase and 54% for the foreground inactivity phase.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

Without any surprise, the app Babbel wins this game on a global score of 17.2 mAh at 25.5 mAh, or 32% less battery consumed compared to his opponent Duolingo. Note that Babbel is also much less consumer in terms of data exchanged, 224 KB against 4.9 MB on the side of Duolingo.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory consumption (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Babbel20.36.010 000 000+4.5900.224147.917.2
Duolingo4.37.1100 000 000+4.7564.9230.725.5

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Babbel has a consumption equivalent to that of a video games app such as Candy Crush Saga. As for Duolingo, its consumption is similar to a browser app such as Opera Mini.(Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, first lesson). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : RocketChat vs Slack
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week: Leboncoin vs Locanto

Reading Time: 3 minutes

In just a few years, websites connecting individuals through classified ads have been a huge success. Already very popular at its debuts, Leboncoin has quickly established itself in the ranking of the most consulted e-commerce websites in France, in 2019 it occupies the second position. Today’s match therefore pits the French leader Leboncoin with Locanto, the German website present on the international scene.

In the left corner Leboncoin, French leader in classifieds created in April 2006. Leboncoin is also the second most popular e-commerce website in France.

In the right corner Locanto, German free classifieds website created in June 2006, available in 5 languages in 60 countries.

The weighting

At weighing Leboncoin is the heavier application with a weight of 94 MB. Its opponent Locanto is lighter with a weight of 10 MB, or 89% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, Locanto (1.6 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 11% less than his opponent Leboncoin (1.8 mAh). The difference in consumption is quite marked also on the product searching phase. Indeed, Leboncoin (8.9 mAh) dishes Locanto (11.3 mAh) K.O with a lower consumption of 21%. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. During the foreground phase, Leboncoin is still the master of the game, consuming 2% less. For the inactivity phase in the background it is a perfect draw!

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

It’s the Leboncoin app that wins this energy battle with a total score of 12.7 mAh at 14.9 mAh, consuming 14% less than Locanto. battery life with Leboncoin. Nevertheless, on the data exchanged side, occupied memory and storage space, it is Locanto which is the least consumer. In economic terms, if your data plan is limited, it will cost you less with Locanto.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Leboncoin4.36.8.010 000 000+3.9942.9585.312.8
Locanto2.7.125 000 000+4.4100.9317.714.9

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Locanto has a consumption equivalent to that of an application of video games as Clash Royale. While Leboncoin is getting closer to the consumption of an application of direct messaging such as Skype. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, product searching, product overview). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Twitter : video vs image vs gif
Battles ideas? Contact us!

RocketChat vs Slack

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Today’s match will oppose two collaborative communication platforms for professional teams: RocketChat and Slack. Collaborative platforms have replaced emails to facilitate exchanges between individuals and teams and also have improved their productivity.

On the left corner RocketChat, is an open-source collaborative communication platform launched in 2016 and has one of the largest numbers of members of the GitHub developer community.

On the right corner Slack, collaborative communication platform created in the USA in 2013. Slack has 10 million active users per day.

The weighting

At weighing RocketChat is the heavier application with a weight of 94 MB. Its opponent Slack is lighter with a weight of 90 MB, or 4% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, Slack (1.2 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 17% less than his opponent RocketChat (1.4 mAh). In the second round that corresponds to the use scenario, Slack (6.5 mAh) still leads to RocketChat (8.4 mAh) with a 29% lower consumption. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. Slack is still the leader of the game with a consumption of less than 3% for the background inactivity phase. For the foreground inactivity phase it is a perfect draw!

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

Without any surprise, it’s the Slack app that wins this game with an overall score of 9.9 mAh at 12.1 mAh, a 18% difference in consumption against its opponent RocketChat. For the data exchanged, it is the same observation, the application Slack is less consuming by 84%.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory consumption (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
RocketChat3.5.1100 000+2.5941.1176.112.1
Slack19.09.10.010 000 000+4.5907.3181.29.9

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Slack has a consumption equivalent to that of an application direct messaging such as Line. As for RocketChat, its consumption is similar to an application such as Microsoft Outlook. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, product searching, product overview). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : United Wardrobe vs Vinted
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week: United Wardrobe vs Vinted

Reading Time: 3 minutes

“Second-hand” clothing applications are a hit with fashion lovers and platforms, and platforms have proliferated in recent years. Today we compare two competing apps: United Wardrobe and Vinted on their mobile energy consumption.

In the left corner United Wardrobe, created in the Netherlands, a real community market designed to buy and sell items from the world of fashion. Their mission is to “democratize used clothes”.

In the right corner Vinted, created in 2012 in Lithuania and which landed in France in 2013, is also a community online market whose purpose is to buy, sell and / or exchange used clothes. 1.4 million users in the hexagon.

The weighting

At weighing United Wardrobe is the heavier application with a weight of 81 MB. Its opponent Vinted is lighter with a weight of 71 MB, or 13% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, United Wardrobe (1.5 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 52% less than his opponent Vinted (3.2 mAh). In the second round that corresponds to the use scenario, United Wardrobe (6.9 mAh) still leads to Vinted (7.7 mAh) with a 10% lower consumption. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. United Wardrobe is still the leader of the game with a consumption of less than 30% for the foreground inactivity phase and 18% for the background inactivity phase.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

Without any surprise, it’s the United Wardrobe app that wins this game with an overall score of 10.6 mAh at 13.8 mAh, a 23% difference in consumption against its opponent Vinted. For the data exchanged and memory consumption, it is the same observation, the application United Wardrobe is less consuming.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory consumption (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
United Wardrobe3.9.01 000 000+3.3811.57010.6
Vinted8.41.1.25 000 000+4.5716.313713.8

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Vinted has a consumption equivalent to that of an application like ShareIt. While United Wardrobe is getting closer to consuming an video games app such as PUBG. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, product searching, product overview). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Leboncoin vs Locanto
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week Twitter special: video vs image vs gif

Reading Time: 2 minutes

A special battle for this new season: different media on Twitter: video, image and gif. Which one is the most energy and resource consuming media when viewing a tweet?

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In terms of energy consumption, a tweet with video consumes 63% more than tweet with image, and 25% more than tweet with gif . The consumption of the tweet with image is equivalent to that of a tweet without media since the images remain relatively small. Nevertheless the consumption increases when the user clicks on an image and displays it in real size.
On the data side exchanged, without any surprise, the tweet with video is the most consuming media with 1.91 MB, unlike tweets with image (112 KB) and gif (92 KB), a ratio of 20 between the heaviest and the lightest. On the occupied memory side, no significant difference in consumption, the values oscillate between 244 and 228 MB.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

The winning media of this match remains the tweet with image, 63% less consumer than a video and 23% than tweet with GIF. So focus on the image to the video for your tweets. In our study on the energy consumption of the 30 most popular apps in the world , we found that the category of social networks was among the most consuming. Video is the new medium favored by users. Application publishers must be vigilant and optimize their use.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Twitter with video8.10.0500 000 000+4.51001.912448.5
Twitter with image8.10.0500 000 000+4.51000.112228.35.2
Twitter with gif8.10.0500 000 000+4.51000.092231.26.8
Twitter without média8.10.0500 000 000+4.51000.042239.85.3

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario: displaying a tweet containing a media (image, video or gif)
Kapten vs Uber

Find the battle of last week: Mixer vs Twitch
Battles ideas? Contact us!

You may also like:

Twitter vs Twitter Lite

L’impact des services tiers comme Twitter sur l’autonomie des batteries

WEBP vs PNG vs JPEG

The battle of the week: Mixer vs Twitch

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A few weeks ago, the famous American streamer under the pseudonym of Ninja announced that he left the streaming platform Twitch for its competitor: Mixer. In just a few days, the milestone of one million paid subscribers had been reached and the platform was the top spot for the most downloaded free apps in the United States. Today’s match is between these two competing applications: Mixer vs. Twitch.

In the left corner Mixer, (formerly Beam) the video game streaming service launched by Microsoft in January 2016.

In the right corner Twitch, leading platform for streaming video games (and other broadcasts) launched in June 2011. It has more than 35 million unique visitors per month.

The weighting

At weighing Mixer is the heavier application with a weight of 114 MB. Its opponent Twitch is lighter with a weight of 95 MB, or 16% less .

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, Twitch assom Mixer in consumption more than 3x less energy. The difference in consumption is quite marked also on the streaming phase. Indeed, Twitch (11.6 mAh) dishes Mixer (15.4 mAh) K.O with a lower consumption of 24%. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. During the foreground phase, Twitch is still the master of the game, consuming 60% less. For the inactivity phase in the background it is a perfect draw!

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

Without any surprise, it’s a knockout victory for the Twitch app, declared victorious against its opponent Mixer on an overall score of 15.3 mAh at 23.9 mAh, either by consuming overall 56% less energy. Note that the Twitch power consumption is still very high. Twitch also dominates its competitor Mixer on memory consumption (-45%) and storage space. Mixer is doing well on data exchanged (-9%).

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Mixer4.7.310 000 000+4.111444.5427.923.9
Twitch7.13.450 000 000+4.69549.1231.315.3

On a 1 minute usage scenario, Twitch has a consumption equivalent to a browser app such as Google Chrome. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, live streaming). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Kapten vs Uber
Battles ideas? Contact us!