English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I keep getting the red underlining in Word whenever I write the word "performant". Here I intend to refer to something that performs well or better than something else (i.e., it's more performant).

Is there something wrong with that word? Does it mean what I actually want to say?

share|improve this question
Though I've never heard it before, it seems to be a viable construction. However, it doesn't have a coherent meaning to me...I don't know what adding the suffix really means (despite what you intend it to mean). – Mitch Aug 23 '11 at 13:59
Perhaps "performant" is jargon of a particular field. If so, and you are writing for that field, then: either ignore the underline or teach Word to accept "performant". – GEdgar Aug 23 '11 at 19:11
I came to this discussion because I find the word performant being used more frequently. I believe it stems from the idea that optimal performance is due to a number of factors, not simply defined as speed or efficiency. If I say I want the fastest system, I might get fastest, but with substandard quality. Efficiency is closer, as it suggests the best use of resources for the desired result, but efficiency does suggest that a solution may be more concerned with cost over speed or quality. In my experience, performant suggests that there will be agreement on the appropriate tradeoffs betwee – user43164 Apr 24 '13 at 22:41
See this talk from 12:51 onwards for good reasons to avoid the word, and a comparison with the words efficient/efficiency: youtube.com/… – Ela782 Dec 23 '14 at 10:47
It's jargon. Know your audience. If your audience is software engineers, it's fine. If it's anyone else, then you should either find another word or explain the jargon. – rich remer Jan 28 '15 at 4:03

11 Answers 11

up vote 43 down vote accepted

Whether or not "performant" is actually a real word has been debated for some time.

It does not appear in the dictionary, nor does Google definitions include it.

While it has been used before and appears in wiktionary, I would tend to avoid using it until the word becomes, well...a word.

Is there any reason you could not use one of the following instead?

Example A performed better than Example B.


Example A outperformed Example B.

Jon Galloway's blog article Performant isn't a word is an example of someone who used "performant" extensively only to be told it was not a word. While the research he did on the subject was conducted in 2007, it certainly seems to remain valid today.

share|improve this answer
While you're at it, you might rephrase "performs good". – TimLymington Aug 23 '11 at 14:10
@TimLymington: I must say "performs good" sounds pretty odd to my ear. The standard expression is "performs well". – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '11 at 22:00
Performing good is something a paladin might do. He or she might even perform good well. – Kaz Dragon Apr 25 '13 at 9:32
Another example of usage for performant would be, "I am attempting to make this program more performant." It sounds more intelligent than, "I am attempting to make this program perform better." I think the extensive usage of the (non-)word inherently makes it a word, whether or not the dictionary authors/editors choose to include it. It follows a basic premise of communication and language in that both parties tend to have the same concept of its meaning. – gregsdennis Jun 26 '13 at 15:30
If everyone avoids using a word until it becomes a word, will it ever become a word? This 'word' is very common in the field of computer science and fills a whole that is of course not supplied by an existing word because the exact concept did not exist until recently. Isn't that how new words are invented--we encounter new concepts and make new labels? It's either that or via slang. – threed Sep 3 '14 at 6:52

It does mean what you want to say, possibly, but it's not the clearest way of saying it.

Performant is being increasingly used, therefore it deserves to be considered a word. I still have misgivings about it though, largely because it seems redundant: you could instead say "fast" or "efficient".
If something's fast, why not just say so, instead of using the word performant?
And more performant is even sillier, when you could just say faster.

At the moment, it's still the sort of word you tend to see written in press releases or spoken by marketing people. To me it's a weasel-word like "premier", which sounds promising but technically meaningless and legally non-binding (what does "premier" actually mean? First, biggest, fastest, best-selling or highest ranking sales by value?)

The word performant could mean one of several things depending on the context (fast, efficient, small, optimal) and not using one of those alternative words suggests (to me) that the speaker/writer doesn't know what he's talking about, or for some reason doesn't want me to know what he's talking about.

Go ahead and use the word if you like, but I won't trust you, because you'll sound like a sales brochure.

share|improve this answer
+1 because of the sales brochure argument, but I don't agree - efficient and optimal could be used with the same meaningless effect. – Camilo Martin Feb 3 '12 at 1:32
In terms of computing fast is not necessarily a good replacement for performant. On a slow computer a program could be well performing for the architecture, but I wouldn't call it fast in a general sense. For a peformant system, efficient only partially describes it. Not only is it efficient, but it's intended to make as much use of the hardware as possible to speed up it's processing of tasks; efficient doesn't describe this, but I believe performant does. Ex: "high performance multi-threaded system" vs "performant multi-threaded system". What do you think? – leetNightshade Mar 14 '14 at 5:23
I think performant basically describes how well something is utilized, a relative measurement. Fast is an absolute, a hard benchmark, unless you clarify it relatively. You watch a young man run the 100m in 10s, then a young boy run it in 15s. The young man is certainly fast, the young boy not so much. However, the boy for his size and age, is fast. Or you could say they are both well performing runners, or performant runners. Anyway, at this point I've over thought the matter, I'm sure. ;p – leetNightshade Mar 14 '14 at 5:32
Also in the context of a web server, one might interpret "fast" as describing latency, "efficient" as describing throughput, and "performant" as describing both. – Daniel Lubarov Aug 25 '15 at 4:20
The software angle on this is important, I think, as performance does indeed have a different meaning from "fast" or "efficient" in that context. "Performance" takes into account the context in which a piece of software exists. "Fast" would be on the plane of the user, "efficient" on the plane of the code itself. A program can be "performant" while not every part of it is "efficient"; it may be "efficient" but perform poorly because of externalities. – Niels Abildgaard Mar 16 at 13:40

In French, it's an actual word that means something like performs effectively, efficiently, and well. So, French students use it regularly because it sounds like English, although I'd classify it as a false cognate.

share|improve this answer
According to the french Wiktionary, the french "Performant" and its related words comes from the english's "Performance", which in turn comes from old-french "Parformance"... :-) ... fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/performance – paercebal Oct 26 '14 at 19:37
"Performant" exists in German as well and also originates from English "Performance", which in turn became a recognized word in German in 1991. In German, something is "performant", if it has a good performance, performs well or is efficient. In no way does it imply something to be optimal. – Marius Jan 14 '15 at 23:08

I use the word performant often, and its meaning (in my opinion) is subtly different from that of fast or efficient. The most performant network might not be the fastest, or the most efficient, but the one which provides the best overall service.

My IT systems are both performant and resilient.

The above seems (to me) to be very succinct. The word performant implies speed, accuracy, flexibility and capability — it implies that my IT systems are just right for my environment. They might not be the fastest, and not necessarily the most feature-packed, but they're just right for my needs.

I like performant.

share|improve this answer
Yeah, where I work (Melbourne, Australia, IT sector), "performant" seems to be very much a real word - I keep seeing and hearing it used by educated, native English speakers. Years ago I worked in the French IT sector, and kind of envied this word: it's very succinct to say "c'est performant mais pas chèr", but hard to translate exactly ("it's fast", "it's powerful", "it's efficient"...are not quite right). "Performant" is just the appropriate adjective for "high performance". – Steve Bennett Mar 17 '15 at 5:08

I would avoid using "performant" in any formal documentation or technical report. However -- coming from the other side of the debate -- I think that there's nothing wrong with using performant.

The English language, along with all other living languages, transform regularly. The more a word is used, the more that it will be accepted. I would be surprised, in fact, if the word doesn't hit the dictionary soon.

As long as you're in a fairly informal situation, I see nothing wrong with using the word. I agree to avoid it in anything formal, though.

share|improve this answer
With some misgivings, admittedly, I'm going to downvote this. Noting OP's getting the red underlining, I think we can assume he's not a native speaker. Whilst I'm happy to agree that English is a "living language", I'm not comfortable with telling non-native-speakers it's okay to promulgate any neologisms or idiosyncratic usages they happen to come up with. – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '11 at 22:05
Uhh... I'm a native speaker and I would totally use that phrase. :P I appreciate you're well thought out comment though. Thank you! – Richard Aug 23 '11 at 22:11
Well, I'm almost a "wrinkly", and ordinarily I would totally not use the word "totally" like that. In general I do agree with your basic premise, particularly when there's clear semantic space waiting to be occupied by a new usage. But in this case I'd have thought existing words like effective and efficient cover the meaning, so performant looks like a jargon "buzzword" that should be left in whatever specialised vocabularies it's already colonised. – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '11 at 22:22
...anyway, having just realised that you could justifiably resent the loss of rep there, I've just been through your other answers and upvoted everything I reasonably could. You may be glad to know there was only one other I couldn't endorse, and in several cases I thought yours was the best answer, even if it didn't have the most upvotes already. – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '11 at 23:02
Deciding the validity of the new word cannot be based solely on which language the prospective user learned first - this is an ad hominem argument. The decision should be based entirely upon the merit of the argument for which the usage was propounded. If we err against validity of an expression when a non-native speaker enquires, the question can still be posed by a native speaker, and if the argument itself (which in this case it is) is meritorious, then we have simply not addressed it. Also, the existence of synonyms don't preclude neologisms - if they did, synonyms wouldn't exist. – lol Jan 26 '13 at 13:21

There's not really anything inherently wrong with performant; its formation is regular enough and it seems to convey a meaning that no other single word conveys. If that is enough for you, then go ahead. But you ought to know that the word will be ill-regarded by many, who will consider it a pseudo-learned, affected, vulgar and pointless novelty. Of course, perhaps they are wrong about this, but even if so, they may well be people whose good opinion of your language is important to you.

share|improve this answer

The word performant is engineering jargon for something that may not be objectively efficient or optimal/fast but meets the performance expectations for which it was created. When an engineer uses the word performant, they mean that it's as fast and efficient as you would intuitively expect it to be. It's not meant to declare that it's the optimal or best solution, just that after working through the problem, it's the solution he settled on, and it was as fast and efficient as he expected it to be while still remaining within other project constraints.

EDIT: Thanks to Sven for contributing a link to this page where the writers associate the degree to which an entity is performant to how well they satisfy some objective. This is very much how I've seen this word used among engineers; something is deemed performant not by merely being fast but by meeting an objective for speed.

It's all about context and connotation. If I improve part of a system that will also improve performance, I might mention in a meeting that I made the part of the system more performant, which could mean that I made it use less memory or processor time, eliminated a redundant and expensive call, used a better algorithm, replaced an external call with an internal one, the list goes on and on. But most everyone at the meeting only cares about the result, and they'll come to me afterwards to discuss the change if they are curious.

It will probably make it into the dictionaries eventually, but in the mean time there's little reason not to use the alternatives, especially since you're writing a document. If you really do want to say something is performant, you can instead outline the metrics for your comparison and use a more appropriate word like other answers have suggested. On the other hand, depending on your intended audience, throwing a buzzword like "performant" in may be helpful. Just use it with care outside of engineering circles.

For inquiring minds:

It's easy to illustrate how the word performant is used in software engineering. Consider sorting a set of numbers from smallest to greatest. Every first year Computer Science student learns the Quicksort algorithm. It is the go-to sorting algorithm because it tends to behave optimally in practice. It has a flaw, however, that can make it abysmally slow on some lists. One of the first and simplest sorting algorithms a student is introduced to, called Insertion sort, can handily beat it in some cases, even though it's usually a very bad choice of sorting algorithm (for large lists).

Which leads to a conundrum: if performant could be simply interchanged with optimal or best, which sorting algorithm would be performant: Quicksort, or Insertion sort? The answer is, "It depends."

It's that way with every algorithm. If you ask someone if their code is efficient or fast, the answer must always be "It depends." How do you define efficient? How do you define fast? And so the "made-up" or "invalid" word performant was born. It allows developers to state with certainty that given resource constraints and expectations, including how much time the developer was given to solve the problem, the proposed solution is performant. It usually implies that performance goals were taken into account, but doesn't exaggerate by saying that it is the fastest solution possible.

In some way, I think developers like to use it because the longer you write software, the humbler you become. I prefer to say that my code is performant (i.e. performance meets expectations) than to say that it is fast or the best way to handle something, because inevitably someone comes along and creates a way better than mine. It's the nature of engineering, all of us standing on the shoulders of giants. It may seem noncommittal, but what exactly do you say when you write something that you know will be obsolete months or years after it's written?

All of that said, whether it is a "word" by anyone's definition, I guarantee it will continue to be used in development circles, as it is not as interchangeable as people outside the field think.

share|improve this answer
Any citations or references for all this? – Martin Smith Sep 15 '14 at 22:47
You make a persuasive case for the word's utility in its originating context. My only regret is that within five years it will begin a second life in MBA-speak among people who vaguely understand it to mean "good" and who misapply to it to company strategies and sales objectives. – Sven Yargs Sep 15 '14 at 22:51
No, I have been a computer programmer for many years and I was just describing my experience for how the word is used among my peers. Forgive me if citations are required, I'll withdraw the answer. – David Schwartz Sep 15 '14 at 22:52
Actually your definition is pretty close to the one here en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/performant – Martin Smith Sep 15 '14 at 22:53
For an example in which authors define performant in connection with three levels of success (or not) in satisfying a system objective, see this page from Reznick, Dimitrov, and Kacprzyk, Fuzzy System Design, the levels being "not performant," "partially performant," and "fully performant." This, I think, is consistent with David Schwartz's description. – Sven Yargs Sep 15 '14 at 23:07

I've only heard a few programmers use it. Generally in a buzzword context to imply that a piece of software or an algorithm is "not slow."

share|improve this answer

Does it help, in the question of validity of the word, to have it referenced in Apple's iOS Human Interface Guidelines ?

"Stretching is performant, but it isn’t usually desirable for a multipixel image that can distort. Tiling is less performant than stretching, but it's the only way to achieve a textured or patterned effect."

I had to look it up, which annoyed me, though the reasons for its use (given by @david-schwartz) are compelling.

share|improve this answer

Acceptance of "Performant" as a word is a symptom of tautological references in the Software Engineering community.

It has been in use in Software Engineering circles since circa 1970 is slang for "efficient" or "tuned".

To answer the OP's question, "What is wrong with [it]", well, nothing really, but the above resources demonstrate that it is software engineering slang which is seldom used in publications outside of Information Technology and so hasn't been elevated to a dictionary word.

share|improve this answer
"Optimal" means "the best". "Performant" doesn't mean that it has the best performance, only that it has good performance. Also, just because something is annoying business-speak or tech-speak, doesn't mean that it's an "invalid" word. – Andrew Grimm May 25 '14 at 11:07
In addition to what Andrew said, though the question is stated as "what is wrong with performant," the implication is "why isn't this word in the dictionary." So a response of "it isn't in the dictionary" (quote: "it isn't a real word") isn't an answer. Plus, you should elaborate on this "tautologic referencing in the Software Engineering community" because you haven't given enough information for me to learn anything from your answer. – David Schwartz Sep 18 '14 at 21:25

To all the people saying that "performant" is not in the dictionary and it is not a word, I refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary:

A person who performs a duty, ceremony, etc., a performer.

Of course, that doesn't help back up what you've been writing, OP, but it is quite interesting.

Personally I understand your usage of "performant" just fine – as long as your audience does too, I wouldn't worry too much what the dictionary says. Maybe it'll catch on, like busting caps, moves, and rhymes.

share|improve this answer

protected by RegDwigнt Jan 23 '14 at 15:25

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.