Comparison of Microsoft.Bond and Google Protocol Buffers performance

Simle data type

A simple Person data type was declared in both Bond and Protocol Buffers. Person has some string and int fields, nested types and repeated fields. Below is a comparison of Fast/Compact Bond binary formats vs Google.ProtocolBuffers and protofub-net

System configuration:

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.10.1, OS=Microsoft Windows NT 6.2.9200.0
Processor=Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4870HQ CPU 2.50GHz, ProcessorCount=4
Frequency=10000000 Hz, Resolution=100.0000 ns, Timer=UNKNOWN
  [Host]     : Clr 4.0.30319.42000, 64bit RyuJIT-v4.6.1080.0
  DefaultJob : Clr 4.0.30319.42000, 64bit RyuJIT-v4.6.1080.0

Serialization:

     Method |        Mean |     StdDev |       Op/s | Rank |  Gen 0 | Allocated |

--------------- |------------ |----------- |----------- |----- |------- |---------- | GoogleProtobuf | 653.0290 ns | 5.9276 ns | 1531325.47 | 1 | 0.0482 | 456 B | ProtobufNet | 891.4352 ns | 14.0410 ns | 1121786.48 | 4 | 0.0669 | 720 B | CompactBond | 691.7178 ns | 8.1182 ns | 1445676.21 | 2 | 0.0253 | 312 B | FastBond | 752.5360 ns | 15.7623 ns | 1328840.02 | 3 | 0.0238 | 312 B |

Deserialization:

     Method |          Mean |     StdDev |       Op/s | Rank |  Gen 0 | Allocated |

--------------- |-------------- |----------- |----------- |----- |------- |---------- | GoogleProtobuf | 1,015.6574 ns | 12.9840 ns | 984583.95 | 2 | 0.1088 | 976 B | ProtobufNet | 1,772.1160 ns | 13.8147 ns | 564297.15 | 3 | 0.0679 | 704 B | CompactBond | 636.9526 ns | 18.3007 ns | 1569975.56 | 1 | 0.0713 | 624 B | FastBond | 645.8444 ns | 9.3764 ns | 1548360.45 | 1 | 0.0749 | 624 B |