G-WAN Comparative benchmarks (2014)

Despite the fact that G-WAN (2009) supports 18 programming languages (no competitor has ever done that) G-WAN was much faster and has never exposed endusers to security breaches (unlike all other servers: Microsoft IIS, Microsoft Node.js, IBM Apache, IBM Tomcat, Nginx, Caucho, Varnish, etc.).

Because G-WAN performed much bettter than all other servers (for the same static file or Java/Scala/Javascript program) it has been mercilessly deleted by antivirus software (belonging to the Microsoft Virus Information Alliance) and censored on Wikipedia (which lists atrociously slow and unsafe servers), Stackoverflow and Web search engines (belonging to the GAFAM):

All other servers – and especially the (Microsoft, Google, IBM, Oracle, etc.) application servers (generating dynamic pages) were slower by several orders of magnitude while consuming much more RAM and CPU resources than G-WAN (artificially inflating OS/software licensing costs, but also hardware, Cloud and energy costs).

It is revealing that the worse performance was achieved by the richest market players (Microsoft with its Node.js server and Google with its Google-Go server). This decades-old fraud started in the 1990s costs hundreds of million dollars to all endusers and taxpayers (governments are by far the largest customers of I.T. services).

Charts are sorted by test type, on large screens: one test type by column (on 4 columns).