Is a Chromium-based browser really better than a Firefox-Gecko-based one?
DISCLAIMER: This post, like all the others written in English, has been translated from Spanish to English using Deepl.
Usually, when people start taking an interest in digital privacy, the first area where they see an opportunity for significant action is the browser they use—which is correct—but the first option that typically comes to mind is Firefox or a browser based on it, which doesn’t necessarily lead to better security and privacy.
Why are people switching from Chrome/Chromium-based browsers to one based on Firefox?
To understand this, you first have to realize that Chrome is made by Google, as many people know. So, once they become aware of digital privacy issues, many people demonize Google (and they’re absolutely right to do so!), but they forget that Google is one of the companies that most strongly supports open source—curious, isn’t it? But that’s a topic for another post.
So, usually, when people see that Chrome/Chromium is “owned by Google,” they immediately assume that makes it highly invasive (They’re somewhat right, but not entirely), so they decide to switch to Firefox, where the main argument is that it’s “open source” and independent (…although Google accounts for about 85% of Mozilla Corporation's revenue, which gives it considerable financial influence over the development of Firefox.). The interesting thing is that the most secure browsers today—Vanadium (from the Graphene OS project), Trivalent (inspired by Graphene OS’s Vanadium and the default browser for Secureblue), and, of course, Chrome—are all based on Chromium, which makes you wonder, “Why?” Well, grab your cup of coffee—let’s get started!
Sandboxing: Sandboxing is currently one of the cornerstones of security, and Chromium's implementation is superior and more mature than Firefox's (on Android, Firefox has no sandboxing at all, whereas Chromium uses the OS-level
isolatedProcessfeature).Firefox “forks” (such as Librewolf) usually make the situation worse because they rely on a separate group of developers (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's something to keep in mind) and because the update cycle can be a bit slower, which is a problem in terms of security (and, therefore, privacy).
Extensions: One of the main selling points of Firefox (and even used as 'advertising' by Firefox's social media accounts) is that it still supports uBlock Origin, since Chrome (and now Edge) enforced Manifest v3 by disabling MV2 support, which has rendered extensions like uBlock Origin unusable in those browsers, although on paper this may seem like an attack on privacy, the reality is that extensions inherently increase the attack surface and digital fingerprint, and one of the main objectives was to prevent the execution of arbitrary code, along with other significant security concerns—which represented a major step forward, but not the definitive solution.
There are also more technical reasons, which are discussed in greater detail in the following links: RKNF HARDENING CHROMIUM GUIDE and madaidans-insecurities firefox-chromium post
Conclusion: Although Firefox is philosophically more appealing, the actual data shows that Chromium-based browsers like Vanadium, Trivalent, and Chrome Hardened outperform Gecko-based browsers by a wide margin. Time will tell if that changes, but for now, if you’re looking for true privacy, I personally recommend a browser listed in the RKNF guide or simply using Vanadium or Trivalent on their own. I hope you have a great day.