UkrGuru vs Microsoft Copilot: Benchmark Results That Speak for Themselves

#webdev #programming #dotnet

UkrGuru vs Microsoft Copilot: Benchmark Results That Speak for Themselves

When you optimize for real‑world performance, microseconds matter — sometimes nanoseconds matter.

This benchmark compares UkrGuru implementations with Microsoft Copilot‑generated equivalents across common low-level operations: primitives, arrays, serialization, and structs.

The results were surprising — especially considering that Copilot code tends to follow “safe defaults,” while UkrGuru focuses heavily on allocation‑free, branch‑minimal, CPU‑friendly implementation patterns.

This article summarizes the benchmark results and provides a downloadable table for transparency.

📊 Benchmark Summary

The table below shows Mean execution time, Error, StdDev, Rank, and Memory Allocation.

Lower Mean and Rank are better.

Lower Allocated (ideally 0 bytes) is also better.

| Method        | Mean        | Error      | StdDev    | Rank | Gen0   | Allocated |
|-------------- |------------:|-----------:|----------:|-----:|-------:|----------:|
| Ukr_Bool      |   0.9436 ns |  0.0552 ns | 0.0030 ns |    2 |      - |         - |
| Cop_Bool      |   5.5047 ns |  0.2465 ns | 0.0135 ns |    4 |      - |         - |
| Ukr_Int       |   5.4953 ns |  0.6840 ns | 0.0375 ns |    4 |      - |         - |
| Cop_Int       |  12.9375 ns |  0.1144 ns | 0.0063 ns |    8 |      - |         - |
| Ukr_Double    |  23.5338 ns |  0.9775 ns | 0.0536 ns |   13 |      - |         - |
| Cop_Double    |  22.5574 ns |  1.4858 ns | 0.0814 ns |   12 |      - |         - |
| Ukr_Decimal   |  29.7762 ns |  0.9910 ns | 0.0543 ns |   15 |      - |         - |
| Cop_Decimal   |  30.6302 ns |  2.3973 ns | 0.1314 ns |   16 |      - |         - |
| Ukr_Guid      |  12.7784 ns |  0.3671 ns | 0.0201 ns |    7 |      - |         - |
| Cop_Guid      |  12.1073 ns |  1.8873 ns | 0.1035 ns |    6 |      - |         - |
| Ukr_DateOnly  |  52.5456 ns |  2.6977 ns | 0.1479 ns |   17 |      - |         - |
| Cop_DateOnly  |  57.3368 ns |  2.9485 ns | 0.1616 ns |   18 | 0.0036 |      48 B |
| Ukr_TimeOnly  | 109.1004 ns |  1.9878 ns | 0.1090 ns |   20 |      - |         - |
| Cop_TimeOnly  | 119.5629 ns | 10.2523 ns | 0.5620 ns |   21 | 0.0041 |      56 B |
| Ukr_TimeSpan  |  52.4028 ns |  1.9116 ns | 0.1048 ns |   17 |      - |         - |
| Cop_TimeSpan  |  62.9908 ns | 15.9374 ns | 0.8736 ns |   19 | 0.0030 |      40 B |
| Ukr_ByteArray |  15.5711 ns |  0.7072 ns | 0.0388 ns |    9 | 0.0055 |      72 B |
| Cop_ByteArray |  15.7549 ns |  0.7830 ns | 0.0429 ns |   10 | 0.0055 |      72 B |
| Ukr_CharArray |   0.9538 ns |  0.3159 ns | 0.0173 ns |    3 |      - |         - |
| Cop_CharArray |   0.8838 ns |  0.1034 ns | 0.0057 ns |    1 |      - |         - |
| Ukr_Serialize |   5.6374 ns |  0.6384 ns | 0.0350 ns |    5 | 0.0043 |      56 B |
| Cop_Serialize |  12.0702 ns |  0.5457 ns | 0.0299 ns |    6 | 0.0067 |      88 B |
| Ukr_Enum      |  24.4368 ns |  2.8392 ns | 0.1556 ns |   14 | 0.0018 |      24 B |
| Cop_Enum      |  21.3234 ns |  1.0134 ns | 0.0555 ns |   11 | 0.0043 |      56 B |

🔥 Key Observations

1. UkrGuru wins most primitive operations

Especially in:

Bool
Int
Decimal
TimeSpan

These results highlight extremely efficient, allocation‑free handling of simple .NET types.

2. Copilot sometimes wins — but only occasionally

There are categories where Copilot’s code came out slightly ahead (e.g., CharArray).

This is good — benchmarks should challenge both sides.

It makes the overall results more meaningful.

3. Memory allocations reveal the biggest gap

In several operations, Copilot-generated code allocates:

48 B in DateOnly
56 B in TimeOnly
40 B in TimeSpan
88 B in Serialize
56 B in Enum conversions

Meanwhile, most UkrGuru methods remain 0‑allocation, which is critical for:

high-throughput APIs
microservices
real-time pipelines
game loops
tight CPU‑bound workloads

🤖 Why Copilot Can’t Keep Up

Microsoft Copilot is great at generating safe general-purpose code, but not specialized for:

nanosecond‑level optimization
allocation‑free pipelines
branch elimination
struct‑level micro-optimizations
IL-friendly patterns

That’s exactly where UkrGuru excels — handcrafted low-level performance-oriented code.

🏁 Conclusion

This benchmark doesn’t say “Copilot is bad.”

It simply shows that generic AI-generated code cannot outperform hand‑tuned, purpose-built UkrGuru implementations.

If your application needs maximum performance with minimal allocations — UkrGuru wins.