Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 25

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()
};

function md() { return [Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15),
          Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15),
          "## "+Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15),
         "This is a *very* simply test using randomness to help",
         "",
         "1. Go",
         "2. Stay",
         "",
         "this is the end"].join("\n");}

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of different JavaScript Markdown implementations, specifically:

1. Marked
2. CommonMark
3. Markdown-it
4. Remarkable
5. Micromarkdown
6. Snarkdown

These libraries are used for parsing and rendering Markdown text.

**Test Cases:**

Each test case involves creating a random Markdown string (`md`) using the `pars` object (a `commonmark.Parser`) or directly using the `conv.marked()` function for each library.

1. **Marked**: Uses the `conv.marked()` function to render the Markdown string.
2. **CommonMark**: Uses the `conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md()))` pipeline to parse and then render the Markdown string.
3. **Markdown-it**: Uses the `conv.mdit.render(md())` function to render the Markdown string.
4. **Remarkable**: Uses the `conv.remarkable.render(md())` function to render the Markdown string.
5. **Micromarkdown**: Uses the `conv.micromarkdown.parse(md())` function to parse and then render the Markdown string (not directly rendering).
6. **Snarkdown**: Uses the `conv.snarkdown(md())` function to render the Markdown string.

**Performance Comparison:**
The benchmark measures the number of executions per second (`ExecutionsPerSecond`) for each library, which indicates how fast they can process and render Markdown text.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

* **Direct Rendering**: Using `conv.marked()` (Marked), `conv.snarkdown(md())` (Snarkdown) - Fast and straightforward, but might not be optimized for performance.
* **Pipeline Approach**: Using `conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md()))` (CommonMark) and `conv.mdit.render(md())` (Markdown-it) - More complex, but can take advantage of parallel processing and caching.
* **Parsing-only**: Using `conv.micromarkdown.parse(md())` (Micromarkdown) - Might be more efficient for text parsing, but not rendering.

**Library-Specific Considerations:**

1. **CommonMark**: Uses a parser to break down the Markdown text into a representation that can be rendered.
2. **Markdown-it**: Provides a flexible API for customizing the rendering process.
3. **Remarkable**: Offers a simple and efficient way to render Markdown text, with support for HTML output.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM)**: A subset of Markdown that is widely used on GitHub.
2. **KaTeX**: A JavaScript library for rendering mathematical equations in Markdown.
3. **Showdown**: A lightweight Markdown parser and renderer.

The benchmark provides a comprehensive comparison of the performance of different Markdown libraries, allowing users to choose the one that best fits their needs.

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	31917.4 Ops/sec
CommonMark	25541.4 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	33124.4 Ops/sec
Remarkable	44461.5 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	83140.6 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	54675.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 25 (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):