Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 30

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 randword() {return Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15)+" "}

function md() { return [randword(),randword()+randword(),"## "+randword(),"","","1. "+randword(),"2. "+randword(),"","","---","","***"+randword()+"***","",
                       randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),"",randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),randword(),
                       randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),"",randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),randword(),
                       randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),"",randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),randword()].join("\n");}

//var [md1, md2, md3, md4, md5, md6] = [md(), md(), md(), md(), md(), md()]

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

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	10393.7 Ops/sec
CommonMark	7452.3 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	8091.4 Ops/sec
Remarkable	10586.2 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	13919.7 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	12302.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares six different JavaScript Markdown implementations:

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

Each implementation is tested with the same input, a generated markdown string (`md()`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `conv` that contains instances of various Markdown libraries:

* `marked`: Marked library
* `cm`: CommonMark library (used for parsing and rendering)
* `mdit`: Markdown-it library
* `remarkable`: Remarkable library
* `micromarkdown`: Micromarkdown library
* `snarkdown`: Snarkdown library

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes links to the Markdown libraries' JavaScript files:

* `marked.min.js`
* `commonmark.min.js`
* `markdown-it.min.js`
* `remarkable.min.js`
* `micromarkdown.min.js`
* `snarkdown.umd.js`

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case uses a different implementation of the Markdown library, and its benchmark definition is:

1. Marked: `conv.marked(md())`
2. CommonMark: `conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md()))`
3. Markdown-it: `conv.mdit.render(md())`
4. Remarkable: `conv.remarkable.render(md())`
5. Micromarkdown: `conv.micromarkdown.parse(md())`
6. Snarkdown: `conv.snarkdown(md())`

**Comparison and Pros/Cons**

The comparison is based on the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) on a Windows Desktop with Firefox 89 browser.

Pros and cons of each approach:

* **Marked**: Fast, but may have compatibility issues with certain HTML elements.
* **CommonMark**: Highly customizable, but can be slower due to more complex parsing logic.
* **Markdown-it**: Flexible and feature-rich, but may require more configuration and optimization for performance.
* **Remarkable**: High-performance and easy to use, but has limited customization options.
* **Micromarkdown**: Fast and lightweight, but has limited features compared to other implementations.
* **Snarkdown**: Fast and simple, but has limited customization options and may not support all HTML elements.

**Current Results**

The benchmark results show the number of executions per second for each implementation:

1. Micromarkdown: 14,192.75
2. Snarkdown: 12,302.71
3. Remarkable: 10,586.25
4. Marked: 10,393.66
5. Markdown-it: 8,091.38
6. CommonMark: 7,452.28

These results suggest that Micromarkdown is the fastest implementation, followed closely by Snarkdown and Remarkable.

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 30 (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 2 months ago):