Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 31

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());
empty
md()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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	10757.3 Ops/sec
CommonMark	7608.6 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	8117.4 Ops/sec
Remarkable	9917.2 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	14729.9 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	12658.5 Ops/sec
empty	28433.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll do my best to break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and evaluated.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of six different Markdown parsing libraries: Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, and Snarkdown. The test cases are designed to simulate real-world usage scenarios by generating a large amount of sample Markdown text (generated using the `md()` function) and measuring the time it takes for each library to parse and render the text.

**Test Cases**

There are two types of test cases:

1. **Library-specific tests**: Each library has its own test case, which involves calling the library's parsing function with the generated Markdown text as input.
2. **Empty test case**: This test case only measures the time it takes to execute an empty function (i.e., no parsing or rendering is performed).

**Compared Options**

The six libraries being compared are:

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

Each library has its own strengths and weaknesses, which are reflected in the benchmark results.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief overview of each library and their characteristics:

1. **Marked**: Fast and lightweight, but may not support all Markdown features.
	* Pros: Fast rendering, simple API.
	* Cons: Limited feature set, may require additional configuration.
2. **CommonMark**: Fast and widely supported, with a strong focus on simplicity.
	* Pros: Fast parsing, wide compatibility, simple API.
	* Cons: May not be as performant as Marked for very large inputs.
3. **Markdown-it**: Fast and feature-rich, with support for many Markdown extensions.
	* Pros: Comprehensive feature set, fast rendering, flexible configuration options.
	* Cons: Can be slower than CommonMark or Marked for simple cases.
4. **Remarkable**: Designed for performance and readability, with a focus on ease of use.
	* Pros: Fast parsing, easy to configure, high-quality documentation.
	* Cons: May not support all Markdown features or require additional setup.
5. **Micromarkdown**: Fast and lightweight, with a simple API and limited feature set.
	* Pros: Extremely fast rendering, minimal dependencies.
	* Cons: Limited feature set, may not be suitable for complex use cases.
6. **Snarkdown**: Designed for performance and ease of use, with support for many Markdown extensions.
	* Pros: Fast parsing, easy to configure, flexible configuration options.
	* Cons: May have slower rendering times compared to CommonMark or Marked.

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show that each library performs differently depending on the specific test case. For example:

* **empty test case**: Remarkable and Micromarkdown are significantly faster than the other libraries, likely due to their lightweight nature.
* **library-specific tests**:
	+ Marked is one of the fastest for simple cases (e.g., single-line Markdown text).
	+ CommonMark is generally fast and consistent across most test cases.
	+ Markdown-it is slightly slower but still performs well on complex cases.
	+ Remarkable is faster than Micromarkdown, likely due to its more efficient rendering algorithm.

Overall, the benchmark highlights the importance of choosing a library that balances performance, feature set, and ease of use for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 31 (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 vs empty

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

empty

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):