Yeah, this error is made consistently throughout the article and the author should fix it. It serves to inflate the project's performance by as much as two-thirds, and some people will see this as intentionally misleading and write your project off because of it. ultrajson looks to be way faster; don't alienate people by fudging the numbers.

Author here. Thanks for pointing this out. I wrote this article long back and forgot about it. I have made the changes .

50% would be a bit closer.

6 = 1.5 * 4. I'm not seeing the problem.