title: Which .NET Memcached client do you use, EnyimMemcached vs. BeITMemcached?
body: <p>Seems like both <strong>EnyimMemcached</strong> (<a href="https://github.com/enyim/EnyimMemcached" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://github.com/enyim/EnyimMemcached</a>) and <strong>BeITMemcached</strong> (<a href="http://code.google.com/p/beitmemcached/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://code.google.com/p/beitmemcached/</a>) are popular .NET Memcached libraries. Both are reasonably active projects under development and have over a thousand downloads. Trying to figure out which one to use but found competing remarks!  I did read another related <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/272989/which-memcached-client-library-should-i-use-for-net">post</a> but still want to ask more people on this before making a decision.</p>
  
  <p><strong>EnyimMemcached</strong> claims on its project homepage (<a href="https://github.com/enyim/EnyimMemcached" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://github.com/enyim/EnyimMemcached</a>), that </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>based on our non-disclosed specially handcrafted in-house performance test we're the fastest C# client ever, using negative amount of system resources, be it memory or CPU time</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>and </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>we follow memcached's protocol specification as strictly as no one else: even the memcached guys ask us if they don't understand something</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>While <strong>BeITMemcached</strong> claims on its project wiki page (<a href="http://code.google.com/p/beitmemcached/wiki/Features" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://code.google.com/p/beitmemcached/wiki/Features</a>) that</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>We have performed extensive functional testing and performance testing of the BeIT Memcached client and we are satisifed that it is working as it should. When we compared the performance against two other clients, the java port and the <a href="https://github.com/enyim/EnyimMemcached" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Enyim memcached client</a>, our client consumed the least resources and had the best performance. It is also following the memcached protocol specifications more strictly, has the most memcached features, and is still much smaller in actual code size.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>So for those who have experience on these or anything similar, which client did you choose to use and possibly why you chose the one you chose?</p>
  
  <p>Thank you,</p>
  
  <p>Ray.</p>