Benchmark: mustache@4.0.1 vs handlebars@4.7.6

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/builds.handlebarsjs.com/handlebars.min-v4.7.6.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/mustache@4.0.1/mustache.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var template = "<strong>This is a slightly more complicated {{thing}}.</strong>.\n{{! Just ignore this business. }}\nCheck this out:\n{{#hasThings}}\n<ul>\n{{#things}}\n<li class={{className}}>{{word}}</li>\n{{/things}}</ul>.\n{{/hasThings}}\n{{^hasThings}}\n\n<small>Nothing to check out...</small>\n{{/hasThings}}";

var context = {
  thing: function() {
    return "blah";
  },
  things: [
    {"className": "one", word: "@fat"},
    {"className": "two", word: "@dhg"},
    {"className": "three", word:"@sayrer"}
  ],
  hasThings: true
};

var handlebarsRenderer = Handlebars.compile(template);
Mustache.parse(template);

Tests:

Handlebars
handlebarsRenderer(context);
Mustache
Mustache.render(template, context);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Handlebars
Mustache

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and its various components to help explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two templating engines: Handlebars (version 4.7.6) and Mustache (version 4.0.1). The benchmark is designed to test how quickly each engine can render a template with a specific context.

**Template Structure**

The provided template contains both Handlebars and Mustache syntax. Here's a breakdown of the key sections:

* `{{thing}}`: A simple variable binding in Handlebars.
* `{{#hasThings}}` and `{{/hasThings}}`: An iteration block in Handlebars, similar to `{{#loop}}` in Mustache.
* `{{! Ignore this business. }}`: A comment block in Handlebars (not used in this example).
* `{{^hasThings}}` and `{{/hasThings}}`: Another iteration block in Handlebars, but it's not being used here.

**Library/ Frameworks**

The benchmark uses two templating libraries:

1. **Handlebars**: A popular JavaScript templating engine that allows you to define templates using a syntax similar to HTML. It's designed for server-side rendering, but can also be used on the client-side.
2. **Mustache**: Another popular JavaScript templating engine that provides a simpler and more lightweight alternative to Handlebars.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's available in modern browsers.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided preparation code includes:

* Defining the template using Handlebars' `compile` method.
* Parsing the template using Mustache's `parse` method.

**Options being Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Handlebars**: Using Handlebars' `compile` method to render the template with a specific context.
2. **Mustache**: Using Mustache's `render` method to render the same template with the same context.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Handlebars**:
	+ Pros: Handlebars is more powerful and feature-rich than Mustache, making it easier to create complex templates.
	+ Cons: Handlebars can be slower and more resource-intensive due to its additional features.
* **Mustache**:
	+ Pros: Mustache is lighter and faster than Handlebars, making it suitable for smaller applications or performance-critical areas.
	+ Cons: Mustache's syntax can be less intuitive for developers familiar with other templating engines.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between Handlebars and Mustache, consider the following factors:

* **Complexity**: If you need to create complex templates with multiple features and functions, Handlebars might be a better choice. For simpler templates, Mustache could be sufficient.
* **Performance**: If speed is critical, Mustache's lightweight nature might make it a better option.
* **Development Time**: Handlebars has a steeper learning curve due to its more comprehensive feature set, but it can lead to more maintainable and reusable code.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative templating engines or libraries, consider the following options:

1. **Pug**: A fast and lightweight templating engine with a syntax similar to Handlebars.
2. **EJS**: A simple templating engine that's easy to learn and use, but may not offer the same level of features as Handlebars.
3. **Underscore.js Templates**: A minimalist templating system built on top of Underscore.js, which provides a lightweight alternative to both Handlebars and Mustache.

Keep in mind that each templating engine or library has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific project requirements and needs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Handlebars	284745.7 Ops/sec
Mustache	463646.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

[email protected] vs [email protected] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Handlebars vs Mustache

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Handlebars

Mustache

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):