Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 15

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/marked@1.1.0/marked.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/commonmark@0.29.1/dist/commonmark.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/markdown-it@11.0.0/dist/markdown-it.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/remarkable@2.0.1/dist/remarkable.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/micromarkdown@0.3.0/dist/micromarkdown.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/snarkdown@1.2.2/dist/snarkdown.umd.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var conv = {
  marked: marked,
  cm: new commonmark.HtmlRenderer(),
  mdit: markdownit({ html: true }),
  remarkable: new remarkable.Remarkable(),
  micromarkdown: window.micromarkdown,
  snarkdown: window.snarkdown,
};

var pars = {
  cm: new commonmark.Parser()
};

var md = "# The Static, Static Blog Generator\n\n### May 17th, 2014\n\nWe all like publishing our thoughts online - but why is it \n\n  * this\n  * is\n    * a\n    * test\n\nsuch a bother to run a CMS?\n\nManaging databases, `updating` software, and keeping track of our *content* often cuts into the most important activity: *expressing ourselves*.\n\nThe web makes it really __easy to share__ our thoughts with millions of __individuals__ from around the world.";

Tests:

Marked
conv.marked(md);
CommonMark
conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md));
Markdown-it
conv.mdit.render(md);
Remarkable
conv.remarkable.render(md);
Micromarkdown
conv.micromarkdown.parse(md);
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Marked
CommonMark
Markdown-it
Remarkable
Micromarkdown
Snarkdown

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 dive into the world of Markdown performance comparisons.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The benchmark tests the execution speed of six different JavaScript libraries for rendering Markdown text: Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, and Snarkdown. Each library is compared to execute a specific benchmarking script.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Marked**: A popular Markdown parser that converts Markdown text to HTML.
2. **CommonMark**: A simple and lightweight Markdown parser that renders Markdown text to HTML.
3. **Markdown-it**: A flexible and customizable Markdown parser that renders Markdown text to HTML.
4. **Remarkable**: A fast and efficient Markdown renderer that converts Markdown text to HTML.
5. **Micromarkdown**: A minimalist Markdown parser that converts Markdown text to HTML, focusing on performance.
6. **Snarkdown**: A fast and lightweight Markdown renderer that converts Markdown text to HTML.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Marked**: Pros: Easy to use, well-maintained, and widely adopted. Cons: May not be as performant as other options.
2. **CommonMark**: Pros: Lightweight and simple, making it easy to integrate into existing projects. Cons: May not support all Markdown features.
3. **Markdown-it**: Pros: Highly customizable and flexible, with a large community of users. Cons: Can be slower than other options due to the overhead of its plugin system.
4. **Remarkable**: Pros: Fast and efficient, making it suitable for high-performance applications. Cons: May not support all Markdown features.
5. **Micromarkdown**: Pros: Highly optimized for performance, making it a great choice for applications where speed is critical. Cons: May be more challenging to use due to its minimalist approach.
6. **Snarkdown**: Pros: Fast and lightweight, making it suitable for applications where size matters. Cons: May not support all Markdown features.

**Other considerations:**

* **Library ecosystem:** Each library has its own community of users and contributors, which can impact the availability of plugins, extensions, and documentation.
* **Feature support:** Some libraries may support more Markdown features than others, so it's essential to evaluate the specific use case and requirements.
* **Performance optimization:** Libraries like Micromarkdown are optimized for performance, making them suitable for applications where speed is critical.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark uses the `marked` library, which is a popular Markdown parser that converts Markdown text to HTML. However, it does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 6 (ES6) functionality.

**Alternative options:**

Other notable Markdown libraries include:

* **Showdoc**: A lightweight and customizable Markdown renderer.
* **MkDocs**: A static site generator that uses Markdown for documentation.
* **Redwood**: A modern JavaScript framework that includes a built-in Markdown parser.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	16181.6 Ops/sec
CommonMark	15972.8 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	17401.0 Ops/sec
Remarkable	22138.1 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	40167.3 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	29542.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 15 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

Comparing performance of: Marked vs CommonMark vs Markdown-it vs Remarkable vs Micromarkdown vs Snarkdown

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

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):