Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 101

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 type="text/javascript" src="https://lukeuser.cacus.feralhosting.com/markdown.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,
    markdown: window.markdown
};

var pars = {
    cm: new commonmark.Parser()
};

function md() {
return "## Can't we simplify? \n\nBecause running websites and managing databases isn't always worth the effort, \"Static Content Generators\" like [Dr. jekyll](http://jekyllrb.com/) and [Mr. Hyde](http://hyde.github.io/) have begun to gain traction as people pre-build websites and then place the static HTML results onto their server. \n\nThis means the web server doesn't need to be configured with any special software or databases - it simply serves the generated static HTML files.\n\nHowever, you still have to install the generator and setup a \"build\" process of sorts after every article.\n\n## Meet Jr.\n\n`Jr` is a truly *static*, static content generator. All the processing of your files happens on the requesting client's computer as needed. The whole system is written in client-side JavaScript. This means:\n\n- minimal bandwidth requirements\n- better search engine indexing\n- awesome screen reader support\n- *zero* security vulnerabilities\n- and more!\n\nHowever, the neatest thing about `Jr` is that you don't have to configure, setup, or install _anything_! Simply download the files, create your articles, and upload everything to your server!\n\ndone.";
}

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(),true);
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md());
markdown-wasm
try {conv.markdown.parse(md());} catch {return null};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	15255.6 Ops/sec
CommonMark	25478.6 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	23725.8 Ops/sec
Remarkable	35604.8 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	43178.5 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	36882.3 Ops/sec
markdown-wasm	152193.2 Ops/sec

Markdown Performance Comparison 101 (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 markdown-wasm

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

markdown-wasm

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A