# Fish-Networking vs Mirror

{% hint style="danger" %}
These benchmarks are very old. Server outbound bandwidth metrics have changed.

As of the date 2023/08/26 Mirror is believed to be approximately 5% more efficient in bandwidth, and Fish-Networking about 90-95% more efficient in bandwidth.

Example:

if Mirror previously sent 100mB/s they are now expected to send 95mB/s.

If Fish-Networking previously sent 100mB/s it would now send 5mB/s
{% endhint %}

## Versions

* Fish-Networking v1.4.3
* Mirror Networking v66.0.3

## Results

**Hardware**

* Windows Server 2019
* AMD EPYC 7402P 24-Core (1 SLICE/CORE USED!)
* 2.00 GB RAM

**100 CCU Scaling**

* FishNet Server lost 1.5% of it's performance.
* FishNet Client ran at 1350 FPS.
* Mirror Server lost 29.5% of it's performance.
* Mirror Client ran at 791 FPS.

**200 CCU Scaling**

* FishNet Server lost 7.4% of it's performance.
* Mirror Server lost 83.2% of it's performance.
* Clients were untested.

**100 CCU Bandwidth**

* FishNet Server per second sent 7.3mB (adjusted 0.55mB) and received 1.1mB.
* Mirror Server per second sent 31.8mB (adjusted 30.2mB) and received 3.2mB.

**200 CCU Bandwidth**

* FishNet Server per second sent 29.9mB (adjusted 2.24mB) and received 2.2mB.
* Mirror Server per second sent 94.3mb (adjusted 89.6mB) and received 4.8mB.

**Spawned Network Objects (idle)**

| Objects | Fish-Networking | Mirror |
| :-----: | :-------------: | :----: |
|    0    |      1.5ms      |  1.5ms |
|   500   |      1.5ms      |  1.9ms |
|   1000  |      1.5ms      |  2.2ms |
|   2000  |      1.5ms      |  2.9ms |
|   4000  |      1.5ms      |  4.2ms |

**Results**

* Client FPS: FishNet clients achieved 70% more FPS than Mirror.
* Bandwidth: FishNet used 67-78% less bandwidth than Mirror.
* Server Performance(200 CCU): FishNet retained 92.6% server performance, while Mirror retained only 16.8% performance.
* Server Performance(4000 idle objects): FishNet retained 100% server performance, while Mirror retained only 36% performance.