Benchmarks

Awaiten wires the graph at build time, so there is nothing to reflect over at runtime. These benchmarks compare it against Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection, Autofac, DryIoc and Simple Injector across the same graphs. Pick a scenario; every multiple is relative to Awaiten.

A per-request pattern, the shape a web app actually runs: open a scope, resolve a deep graph of mixed lifetimes rooted at a request handler, then dispose the scope.

285.7 nsper request with Awaiten

The next fastest container, DryIoc, takes 1.5× as long, and MS.DI takes 2.2× as long.

Time

lower is better

Awaiten285.7 ns

DryIoc440.8 ns1.5×

MS.DI638.0 ns2.2×

Simple Injector806.5 ns2.8×

Autofac6.96 µs24×

Memory

lower is better

Awaiten568 B

DryIoc944 B1.7×

Simple Injector1.07 KiB1.9×

MS.DI1.08 KiB1.9×

Autofac10.53 KiB19×

Bars longer than four times the fastest container are cut so the others stay comparable. Hover a bar or a multiple for the exact comparison.

Container	Time	vs Awaiten	Memory	vs Awaiten	Time vs Awaiten, recent runs
Awaiten	285.7 ns	baseline	568 B	baseline
DryIoc5.4.3	440.8 ns	1.5×	944 B	1.7×
MS.DI10.0.14	638.0 ns	2.2×	1.08 KiB	1.9×
Simple Injector5.6.0	806.5 ns	2.8×	1.07 KiB	1.9×
Autofac9.3.4	6.96 µs	24×	10.53 KiB	19×

Measured on 2026-11-07 at commit 68538ab5BenchmarkDotNet MediumRun (in-process)ubuntu-latestView the benchmark source on GitHub →

How these numbers are measured

• Suite: Awaiten.Benchmarks driven by BenchmarkDotNet.
• Job: MediumRun with the in-process toolchain.
• Runner: ubuntu-latest GitHub Actions agent, refreshed on every push to main.
• Sizes: Build and Resolve are measured at container sizes of 8 and 256 registrations.
• Trend: the recent runs compare each container with Awaiten in the same run, so the line does not depend on the speed of the runner. The dashed line marks equal time.