TechRepublic’s reporting brings together three different kinds of evidence: Apple’s marketing claims, an older head-to-head browser experiment and newer measurements of Chrome’s energy use. The essential distinction is that these are not three attempts to reproduce the same test. Treating them as a single leaderboard would give the numbers more authority than their methods support.
What Apple’s five-hour claim actually covers
Apple’s Switch to Safari page explicitly ties the battery advantage to video streaming. Its separate speed claim concerns frequently visited websites, not every page or web application. Apple also promotes Intelligent Tracking Prevention, but that privacy feature is a separate consideration—not independent verification of the battery result.
The accessible page text carries footnote references without exposing enough testing detail to reproduce the comparison here. That limits what can responsibly be concluded about the hardware, browser settings and playback conditions behind the headline. The figures should remain attributed to Apple rather than presented as guaranteed savings.
The takeaway: A streaming advantage is not automatically a five-hour extension to an office workday.
The direct comparison favored Chrome—but in 2024
Developer Matt Birchler’s September 14, 2024 experiment compared Chrome 128 and Safari 17.6 on a 14-inch M2 Pro MacBook Pro with 16 GB of RAM running macOS Sonoma. Each browser completed six three-hour sessions, producing 36 hours of testing overall. His automated routine mixed YouTube, Mastodon, news reading and typing in Google Docs. Brightness was approximately 30% for most runs, and he alternated browser order.
The average battery drain per three-hour session was:
| Browser | Average battery drain |
|---|---|
| Safari 17.6 | 18.67% |
| Chrome 128 | 17.33% |
Chrome used less battery in five of the six comparisons. The difference between the averages was 1.34 percentage points of battery charge, not a five-hour runtime measurement.
Birchler acknowledged run-to-run variation and possible nonlinearity in macOS’s battery-percentage display. He also excluded substantial background workloads. His findings challenge the assumption that Chrome must always consume more battery, but older browser versions and a different workload cannot disprove Apple’s newer streaming claim.
WattMate measured Chrome, not a Safari advantage
WattMate’s research, updated October 14, 2026, reports 374 completed observation windows across two Apple-silicon MacBooks. It lists typical Chrome power consumption of approximately 2.3 watts on one machine and 4.1 watts on the other, with modeled runtime gains from quitting Chrome of 24 and 142 minutes respectively.
Those estimates are not the benefit of switching to Safari. WattMate explicitly says Safari received too little use to support a valid comparison. Closing a browser and replacing its workload with another browser are different experiments.
There are additional limitations: two users’ machines, an unpublished analysis script and a disclosed measurement issue that may make the wattage figures approximately 5% too high. WattMate says energy totals and relative rankings are unaffected. Its useful contribution is demonstrating how differently Chrome’s cost can sit within different overall workloads—not identifying a universal browser winner.
A practical detail: power-saving modes spare meeting tabs
Google’s current Chrome documentation supplies an important workplace qualification. Energy Saver stops eligible CPU-intensive background tabs, but does not apply that treatment to tabs using video conferencing or playing audio. Consequently, its background-tab savings should not be mistaken for a promise to substantially reduce the cost of an active meeting.
On desktop Chrome, open Settings > Performance to review:
- Energy Saver, which reduces background work and operates when unplugged or at a selected low-battery condition.
- Memory Saver, which deactivates unused tabs and reloads them when revisited.
- Always keep these sites active, for sites that should remain exempt from deactivation.
Google notes that activities including calls, screen sharing and partially completed forms can prevent Memory Saver deactivation. It also warns that Energy Saver can change gaming and video performance. These controls are available to Windows users as well, making them a practical finding beyond this Mac-only comparison.
How IT teams should evaluate a switch
For a workplace pilot, the sensible approach is to test the work—not just the browser logo. The following is a proposed evaluation plan, not a claim of original testing:
- Use the same Mac for paired runs. Record hardware, macOS and browser versions, brightness, battery condition and power settings.
- Repeat a defined workload. Include the organization’s actual Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace tasks, meetings, screen sharing and required extensions.
- Match conditions. Keep network location, starting charge ranges and background applications consistent; alternate browser order.
- Record trade-offs. Note battery change alongside call quality, application errors, sign-in behavior and extension compatibility.
- Repeat before deciding. Treat inconsistent results as a reason for more testing, not an invitation to select the most flattering run.
The evidence supports reconsidering browser assumptions, not declaring a champion. Apple offers a streaming claim; Birchler supplies a limited historical comparison; WattMate illustrates workload-dependent energy costs. For enterprise IT, the winning browser is the one that delivers repeatable savings without breaking the work employees need to do.