diff --git a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
index 8cc72ad..dba97eb 100644
--- a/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
+++ b/µBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
@@ -90,7 +90,9 @@ This is the benchmarks comparing CPU usage in the background page when loading [
 
 ![CPU benchmark](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/bgpage-cpu-si.comx10.png)
 
-I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above is background page), but given the web page used for the benchmark is quite a bloated one, the useful figures were drawn in a see of noise. But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to used much more than µBlock (3 to 1 ratio). Also, the amount of work µBlock does in its content scripts is proportional to the complexity of a web page. So given µBlock did much better than ABP in its content script for such a bloated web site means it has the right approach to implementing cosmetic filters.
+I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above is background page), but given the web page used for the benchmark is quite a bloated one, the useful figures were drawn in a see of noise. But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to used be much more than µBlock (3 to 1 ratio) when comparing content script CPU usage (above is background page CPU usage).
+
+Also, the amount of work µBlock does in its content scripts is proportional to the complexity of a web page. So given µBlock did much better than ABP in its content script for such a bloated web site means it has the right approach to implementing cosmetic filters.
 
 ### Related wiki pages