Java/.NET bridge benchmark landing page
If your Java code is more than a tiny utility call, the bridge model matters. In production-shaped Java/.NET benchmark scenarios, JNBridgePro delivered faster results against IKVM, Javonet, and jni4net.
faster than IKVM
Coarse-grained risk aggregation batch call: 3,530.875 ms for JNBridgePro vs 12,185.226 ms for IKVM.
.NET 8 scenarios vs Javonet
JNBridgePro won 13 of 14 head-to-head .NET 8 scenarios, including object graphs and 1KB blob echo tests.
faster than jni4net
Production-shaped BatchEngine.portfolioBatch x400 workload: 425.147 ms vs 1,338.893 ms.
Easy-to-scan benchmark data
These are the strongest defensible rows from the recent competitor benchmark work. They are not a claim that every possible bridge call behaves the same way; they show where JNBridgePro won the workloads that look most like real integration.
| Competitor | Workload shape | JNBridgePro | Competitor result | Headline | Deep dive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IKVM Bytecode-to-IL conversion model | Coarse-grained risk aggregation batch call. Java does substantial work; .NET crosses the bridge once per benchmark operation. | 3,530.875 ms | 12,185.226 ms | JNBridgePro 3.45× faster | Read IKVM benchmark article → |
| IKVM Matched-bytecode rerun | Same Java source compiled once with javac --release 8, then tested through both runtime models. | Batch sequential N=200 won by JNBridgePro | IKVM-translated Java running as MSIL | Up to 3.60× faster | Compare runtime models → |
| Javonet Commercial runtime invocation bridge | .NET 8 Factory.manhattan object-graph iteration. | 3,443 ns/op | 88,489 ns/op | JNBridgePro 25.7× faster | Read Javonet benchmark article → |
| Javonet Bulk primitive-array marshalling | .NET Framework 4.8 Blob.sum(1M-int), measuring larger data movement across the bridge. | 9.69 ms/call | 521.99 ms/call | JNBridgePro 53.9× faster | Generated proxies vs runtime invocation → |
| jni4net Older JNI-based bridge | BatchEngine.portfolioBatch x400: .NET crosses once, Java performs substantial portfolio work. | 425.147 ms | 1,338.893 ms | JNBridgePro 3.15× faster | Read jni4net benchmark article → |
Benchmark scope matters: tiny method-call microbenchmarks can favor different tools. The business question is usually how the bridge behaves when real Java code stays inside Java and .NET calls it in a production-shaped way.
What the numbers mean
JNBridgePro’s advantage comes from a purpose-built bridge model: Java runs where Java belongs, .NET runs on the CLR, and generated proxies make the bridge feel natural from application code.
Real JVM behavior
JNBridgePro keeps Java on HotSpot instead of translating bytecode into another runtime model.
- Modern JVM/JIT optimization path
- Better fit for complex Java libraries
- Preserves expected Java runtime behavior
Generated proxies
Instead of reflection-heavy runtime invocation at every call site, JNBridgePro generates proxies for natural Java/.NET usage.
- Direct-looking method calls
- Cleaner application code
- Measured wins in object-graph workloads
Production-shaped wins
The strongest rows are coarse-grained workloads: cross the bridge intentionally, then let Java do real work.
- 3.45× faster vs IKVM batch
- 25.7× faster vs Javonet object iteration
- 3.15× faster vs jni4net batch
Read the full competitor deep dives
Use this page for the quick executive view; use the linked articles when you need the architecture details, benchmark scope, and migration considerations.
Test JNBridgePro against your own Java code.
Benchmarks are useful, but the best proof is your application: your JARs, your call patterns, your runtime requirements. Start a trial or talk to JNBridge about the right integration path.