Benchmark: Handlebars vs Hogan vs Mustache rendering

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/handlebars.js/4.7.6/handlebars.min.js" integrity="sha512-zT3zHcFYbQwjHdKjCu6OMmETx8fJA9S7E6W7kBeFxultf75OPTYUJigEKX58qgyQMi1m1EgenfjMXlRZG8BXaw==" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mustache.js/4.0.1/mustache.min.js" integrity="sha512-6AXIWogbKpsHvoZJrJtHpIYES4wP8czSj0zk7ZfwOYS8GWYFNSykwdfapt7yQc4ikZytemBu+QyVObzBHJMwYg==" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/hogan.js/3.0.2/hogan.min.js" integrity="sha512-F6j8lc1UBrmZHqUGreg4gNVVMCehTbf/LU0s/nnsQJYVeFSdpci+fcL48gsTd1Fbf08sD/kL+is2QiEssvJ70g==" crossorigin="anonymous"></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 handlebarsRenderer = Handlebars.compile(template);
var hoganRenderer = Hogan.compile(template);

Tests:

handlebarsRenderer({thing:"hello"});
handlebarsRenderer({thing:"hello"});
hoganRenderer.render({thing:"hello"});
hoganRenderer.render({thing:"hello"});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
handlebarsRenderer({thing:"hello"});
hoganRenderer.render({thing:"hello"});

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the rendering performance of three templating libraries: Handlebars, Hogan, and Mustache. The goal is to determine which library is faster when rendering a specific template with some data.

**Template Analysis**

The template contains several directives:

* `{{thing}}`: This will be replaced with the value of the "thing" variable.
* `{{! Just ignore this business. }}`: This line will be ignored during rendering, and its contents are not relevant to the benchmark.
* `{{#hasThings}}`: This is a loop that iterates over an array of objects (`things`). Each object has a `word` property, which will be rendered as an `<li>` element with a specific class name.
* `{{^hasThings}}`: This is another loop that iterates over the same array, but this time only when the `hasThings` condition is false.

**Library Comparison**

The three libraries being tested are:

1. **Handlebars**: A popular templating engine for JavaScript applications.
2. **Hogan**: Another templating library, similar to Handlebars, but with some performance optimizations.
3. **Mustache**: A lightweight templating engine designed for simplicity and ease of use.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two rendering approaches:

1. **Handlebars Renderer**: The `handlebarsRenderer` function is used to render the template with the provided data ({{thing:"hello"}}).
2. **Hogan Renderer**: The `hoganRenderer.render()` method is used to render the same template with the same data.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Handlebars Renderer**:
	+ Pros: Handlebars has a large community and extensive documentation, making it easy to learn and use.
	+ Cons: It may have performance overhead due to its complexity.
* **Hogan Renderer**:
	+ Pros: Hogan is designed for performance and simplicity, making it suitable for applications where rendering speed is crucial.
	+ Cons: Its smaller community and less comprehensive documentation might make it more challenging to learn and use.

**Library-Specific Considerations**

* **Handlebars**: Handlebars has a strong focus on safety features, such as escaping and sanitization, which can impact performance. However, its robustness and flexibility make it a popular choice for many applications.
* **Hogan**: Hogan is designed to be fast and lightweight, making it suitable for applications where rendering speed is essential. Its simplicity comes at the cost of less comprehensive documentation and support.

**Other Alternatives**

If Handlebars or Hogan are not ideal choices, other templating libraries could be considered:

1. **Mustache**: A lightweight and simple templating engine that's easy to learn and use.
2. **Pug** (formerly Jade): A popular templating engine for Node.js applications, known for its performance and ease of use.
3. **Nunjucks**: A templating library developed by Instagram, offering a balance between simplicity and performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of templating library ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/107.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 107 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
handlebarsRenderer({thing:"hello"});	467397.3 Ops/sec
hoganRenderer.render({thing:"hello"});	6894009.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Handlebars vs Hogan vs Mustache rendering (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: handlebarsRenderer({thing:"hello"}); vs hoganRenderer.render({thing:"hello"});

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

handlebarsRenderer({thing:"hello"});

hoganRenderer.render({thing:"hello"});

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):