# sing-box vs xray

An attempt on benchmarking these two multi-protocol proxying frameworks.
It's reproducible, configs are not redacted, I even uploaded self-signed TLS cert+key,
client commands are shown in `bench_*.txt` files.
All you need is iperf3 on client and server, hyperfine on client,
xray and sing-box binaries (take from "Releases" or compile by yourself) placed on client and server.

## In a nutshell

Results are inaccurate, they look like a statistical error, made by,
for example, different ISP's network load, that's why I said "an attempt on benchmarking".

Both proxies are almost the same speed. *Xray was sometimes a bit faster.*
But in iperf3 benchmark it often behaved weird: from 2nd packet speed was dropping to zero.

So, use what you want / to what you already get used / what works better in your case.
As for me, I found sing-box' JSON config more convenient than Xray's.
On the other hand, Xray provides more features to hide a proxy,
that is important, I guess (?), in China and Iran.

## Version

sing-box built from dev-next branch, [26f092d](https://github.com/SagerNet/sing-box/commit/26f092da6fb0801b11c91fd5c8468e9949312e02)
```
sing-box version unknown

Environment: go1.23.2 linux/amd64
Tags: with_gvisor,with_dhcp,with_wireguard,with_reality_server,with_clash_api,with_quic,with_utls,with_ech
Revision: d97a7569507816bf2ac1a355e19d26b521fb046e
CGO: enabled
```

Xray-core built from main branch, [5a96ef6](https://github.com/XTLS/Xray-core/commit/5a96ef632d65b8e68c4f337e0f918a55d1925396)
```
Xray 24.11.11 (Xray, Penetrates Everything.) 5a96ef6 (go1.23.2 linux/amd64)
A unified platform for anti-censorship.
```

## hyperfine, curl, direct outbound

File: `bench_curl_direct.txt`

Measurement of execution time of curl.
Shows overhead of a proxying software.

Proxies are set up to accept requests by SOCKSv5 and forward directly to net.

units: ms (less is better)

### ~1.5M binary file over https from dc09.ru

|proxy|min|avg|max|
|:----|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|no proxy|383.3|477.2|697.7|
|sing-box|376.4|478.6|681.2|
|xray|374.2|467.7|662.8|

### 162 bytes HTML over plain http from dc09.ru

|proxy|min|avg|max|
|:----|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|no proxy|51.0|60.5|81.7|
|sing-box|49.1|62.2|69.9|
|xray|51.2|61.6|76.4|

### ~150K HTML over https from github.com

|proxy|min|avg|max|
|:----|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|no proxy|365.3|402.1|449.8|
|sing-box|338.6|390.5|445.5|
|xray|342.3|390.8|426.0|

## iperf3, proxied outbound

Measurement of bandwidth with iperf3.
Shows processing speed of a proxying software.

Client proxy (sing-box or xray, specified by a table column) is connected to SOCKSv5, Trojan or VLESS inbound on dc09.ru;
server proxy on dc09.ru is either sing-box or xray (heading before a table), accepts requests on all 3 inbounds;
iperf3 server is on the same host as a server proxy.

units: Mbit/s (more is better)

### no proxy

File: `bench_iperf_noproxy.txt`

*sender* 93.7 Mbit/s (*receiver* 91.4 Mbit/s)

### server is sing-box

File: `bench_sb_*.txt`

|protocol|sing-box|xray client|
|:-------|:------:|:---------:|
|SOCKSv5|102.0 (91.3)|102.0 (91.3)|
|Trojan|101.3 (91.0)|100.5 (90.6)|
|VLESS|101.3 (91.3)|101.5 (90.7)|

### server is xray

File: `bench_xray_*.txt`

|protocol|sing-box|xray client|
|:-------|:------:|:---------:|
|SOCKSv5|101.5 (91.3)|103.0 (91.4)|
|Trojan|100.1 (90.0)|100.5 (90.6)|
|VLESS|99.6 (91.1)|102.0 (91.1)|