I've benchmarked them every few years, they never seem to differ by more than a few percent, and jemalloc seems to fragment and leak the least for processes running for months.

Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing, so I am not inclined to trust it now.

▲

ComputerGuru 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing

That’s… ahistorical, at least so far as I remember. It wasn’t marketed as either of those; it was marketed as small/simple/consistent with an opt-in high-severity mode, and then its performance bore out as a result of the first set of target features/design goals. It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.

	▲	codexon 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc. That is true of basically every single malloc replacement out there, that is not a uniquely defining feature.
	▲	jeffbee 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		mimalloc definitely made claims that could not be reproduced, or at least not by me. That's why I wrote this doc five years ago. "Irreproducible malloc benchmarks" https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/evnn6yoornh9p6l7nq1t9/Irrepro...