Maravel-Framework 10.61.9 Benchmarks vs Lumen and Laravel
Published: (February 8, 2026 at 04:00 PM EST)
2 min read
Source: Dev.to
Source: Dev.to
Benchmark Overview
Thanks to the benchmark suite at , the following comparisons were made:
- Maravel Micro‑Framework 10.52.14 vs Lumen 10
- Maravelith 10.52.8 vs Laravel 10.3
System Specifications
- PHP: 8.1
- OS: Ubuntu MATE 22.04
- Hardware: GIGABYTE GA‑M52S‑S3P rev 1.0
- CPU: AMD Phenom II x2 550 @ 3.1 GHz
- RAM: 8 GB (4 × 4 GB Samsung DDR2, PC2‑6400U‑666, 800 MHz, Non‑ECC)
- GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT
Results Without Cache Commands
| Framework | Speed Relative to Lumen/Laravel | Memory Usage |
|---|---|---|
| Maravel | 62 % faster than Lumen 10 | Same as Lumen |
| Maravelith | 4 % faster than Laravel 10 | 1 % more than Laravel |
| Lumen | Baseline | — |
| Laravel | Baseline | — |
Observations
- Maravel is slower than Lumen when cache‑related features are enabled (circular‑dependency prevention,
autowiring:cache). - Maravelith matches Laravel’s performance with the added features
config:cache,route:cache,autowiring:cache, andevent:cache(the latter includes observers, disabled by default in Maravel).
Results With Cache Commands
| Framework | Cache Features | Speed Improvement vs. No‑Cache | Memory Reduction vs. No‑Cache |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maravel | config:cache, route:cache, autowiring:cache | 5 % less memory usage | — |
| Maravelith | config:cache, route:cache, autowiring:cache, event:cache | 26.66 % less memory usage | — |
| Laravel | config:cache, route:cache, event:cache | 24.72 % less memory usage | — |
| Lumen | n/a | — | — |
- Maravelith is 57 % faster with cache enabled, while Laravel is 53 % faster when compared to their respective non‑cached runs.
- In memory terms, Maravelith uses 1.5 % less memory than Laravel when both are run with cache enabled.
Summary
- Maravel outperforms Lumen by 62 % without cache, but its additional features introduce a slight slowdown when caching is enabled.
- Maravelith provides a modest speed advantage over Laravel (4 % faster) and uses marginally less memory (1 % less) while offering the same cache capabilities.