If I were you, I would delete that code you posted, and which I proved you it is running 10x more slower than what you were bragging about as being 10x more efficient. If 10x slower means "10x more efficient" for you, than yeah, my bad.
You mean this:
Execution time: 7.475505113601685 seconds
Total matches: 46
Execution time: 0.8068211078643799 seconds
Total matches: 7
Clearly show my point that the first is more efficient with 46 coincidences, and the second although it is faster, obtubes a low coincidence rate.
Doesn't it seem similar to what you propose with Kangaroo the second?