NenaMark3 vs PulzeMark
Price, ratings, monetisation and update history for both apps, side by side — with what reviewers say about each.
NenaMark3
This application serves as a benchmark to measure the 3D graphics performance of a system. It gradually increases scene complexity to determine the point at which frame rates drop below 60 FPS, aiding in comparisons between different devices for gaming and 3D applications.
- Measures 3D graphics performance
- Gradually increases scene complexity
- Determines frame rate drop point
- Compares system performance
- Assesses suitability for 3D apps and games
Read full descriptionHide full description
Nenamark3 is a benchmark that measures the 3d performance of a system by gradually increasing the complexity of a scene until the frame rate drops below 60. Purpose Nenamark3 is run to compare different systems against each other from a 3d graphics perspective. A 3d graphics benchmark tries to show how well a system will perform in games or or apps that make use of 3d graphics. 3D Graphics Apps A 3d app, such as a game, will typically have individual settings for different tiers of devices. A lo-end system will have less features and look less amazing than a hi-end system. If hi-end settings are used on a lo-end system it will not be able to maintain its frame rate of 60 fps, causing it to drop frames and “stutter”. What a 3D benchmark should do This means that a graphics benchmark should define a set of scenes of increasing complexity and find how far a system can go while maintaining 60 fps. The common way of running static scenes and measure the fps have several problems. First, it is not relevant to run at any other frame rate than 60. It is not certain that lower fps are comparable to each other. All we can say for certain is - did it make 60 or not? Second, once 60 is reached where do you go? While it is possible to do off screen render and let the fps go as high as it can this is also irrelevant. If you have more power you would probably want more advanced features rather than more of the lesser features (perhaps you’d want a more correct lighting model rather than say more geometry). Go Slow There is a point to scaling the complexity gradually over time. Especially embedded systems have quite sophisticated clock governors that speeds up the clocks when needed, even for the GPU. These sample the load at certain intervals and adapt so it makes sense to slowly build complexity. In a game there would be a few slow frames before the system could react which would be annoying but not critical.
PulzeMark
Read full descriptionHide full description
PulzeMark measures how fast your iPhone and iPad really are: CPU, storage, and on-device AI, all in one app. Every result is scored and compared against a live, anonymous, crowdsourced leaderboard, so you can see exactly where your device stands. ON-DEVICE AI BENCHMARK Download a free, open-source language model and run it entirely on your device. PulzeMark measures how many tokens per second your iPhone or iPad generates, plus prompt throughput and time to first token. No cloud, no account. Two engines, each with its own leaderboard: Apple-native MLX for peak performance, and GGUF (llama.cpp) with cross-platform leaderboards, where identical models put every device on the same board. Compare your device against others running the same model at the same output length. CPU AND REAL-WORLD TESTS Single-core and multi-core CPU, plus real workloads: integer and floating point math, cryptography, compression, photo processing, and UI layout. Scores share one unified scale across platforms, so equal numbers mean equal performance. You get a clear score and a live timeline of CPU usage and thermal state during the run. STORAGE SPEED Sequential and random read and write, with configurable file size, block size, and passes. See your real disk throughput in MB/s. COMPARE EVERYTHING Results are crowdsourced anonymously. Compare your device per category and per AI model, browse every device ever benchmarked, and explore the full cross-platform leaderboard on the web. PRIVATE BY DESIGN No sign-in, no tracking, no personal data. Submissions are anonymous: just the device model, scores, and raw metrics. FEATURES - CPU single-core and multi-core benchmarks - Real-world tests: photo processing and UI layout - Storage read and write, sequential and random - On-device LLM benchmark in tokens per second - Two AI engines: Apple-native MLX and cross-platform GGUF (llama.cpp) - Manage downloaded models and their storage from Settings - Live CPU and thermal monitoring during runs - Crowdsourced, anonymous leaderboards - Per-model AI comparison across devices - Shareable result cards - Works on iPhone and iPad Benchmark your device, then see how it stacks up against the world.
Screenshots
Verdict
The clearest difference is update cadence: PulzeMark at weekly against NenaMark3's every 3 weeks. NenaMark3's advantage is iOS requirement (7.1 vs 18.6). On price, ads, in-app purchases and device support there is nothing between them.
Scored on Price · Rating · Positive reviews · Number of ratings · Update frequency · Ads · In-app purchases · Monetization · Best chart rank · Devices · Requires iOS
Both are free to download. Neither carries in-app purchases, so what you see is what you pay.
NenaMark3 ships an update every 3 weeks, PulzeMark weekly. The most recent releases landed on November 2, 2026 and October 28, 2026 respectively.
| Parameter | NenaMark3 | PulzeMark |
|---|---|---|
| Price | Free | Free |
| Rating | 3.0 (2 ratings) — better | — |
| Positive reviews | 66.7% of reviews | — |
| Number of ratings | 2 — better | — |
| Update frequency | Every 3 weeks | Weekly — better |
| Ads | No | No |
| In-app purchases | No | No |
| Monetization | Free | — |
| Devices | iPhone, iPad, iPod | iPhone, iPad, Mac |
| Requires iOS | 7.1 — better | 18.6 |
| Further details — not scored | ||
| Size | 34 MB | 72 MB |
| Age rating | 4+ | 4+ |
| Developer | Nena Innovation AB | FLORIN CRISTIAN NEMES |
In-app purchases
NenaMark3
No in-app purchases
PulzeMark
No in-app purchases









