Benchmark: obfuscator.io low preset vs no obfuscation

Tests:

Obfuscated (low preset) code
var _0x249b=['29azrgNJ','prototype','4IfxOtl','return\x20(function()\x20','1219882DQaStf','log','7080MAlWxG','17045pohBSV','258023dMjogI','apply','{}.constructor(\x22return\x20this\x22)(\x20)','toString','876691hrAuBT','^([^\x20]+(\x20+[^\x20]+)+)+[^\x20]}','trace','56nyvPlQ','constructor','length','164793thiQQm','__proto__','console','warn','info','891176khYRvi','bind'];(function(_0x5d6f79,_0x1bf8a3){var _0x51ed42=_0x36ba;while(!![]){try{var _0x48fb4c=parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xc2))+-parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xbc))*-parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xcc))+parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xc1))*parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xba))+-parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xc6))+-parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xc9))*-parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xc0))+parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xb8))+-parseInt(_0x51ed42(0xbe));if(_0x48fb4c===_0x1bf8a3)break;else _0x5d6f79['push'](_0x5d6f79['shift']());}catch(_0x4d4518){_0x5d6f79['push'](_0x5d6f79['shift']());}}}(_0x249b,0x931d7));function hi(){var _0x247496=_0x36ba,_0x3689a2=function(){var _0x149c5a=!![];return function(_0x5867db,_0x325419){var _0x4bb6c1=_0x149c5a?function(){var _0x30b056=_0x36ba;if(_0x325419){var _0x2adbe7=_0x325419[_0x30b056(0xc3)](_0x5867db,arguments);return _0x325419=null,_0x2adbe7;}}:function(){};return _0x149c5a=![],_0x4bb6c1;};}(),_0x1fe293=_0x3689a2(this,function(){var _0x433e9e=function(){var _0x48fa53=_0x36ba,_0x1d2fe3=_0x433e9e[_0x48fa53(0xca)]('return\x20/\x22\x20+\x20this\x20+\x20\x22/')()['constructor'](_0x48fa53(0xc7));return!_0x1d2fe3['test'](_0x1fe293);};return _0x433e9e();});_0x1fe293();var _0x1451c5=function(){var _0x218f15=!![];return function(_0x29d557,_0x2937b7){var _0x567e7b=_0x218f15?function(){var _0x5d58c6=_0x36ba;if(_0x2937b7){var _0x47a3bc=_0x2937b7[_0x5d58c6(0xc3)](_0x29d557,arguments);return _0x2937b7=null,_0x47a3bc;}}:function(){};return _0x218f15=![],_0x567e7b;};}(),_0x219062=_0x1451c5(this,function(){var _0x3a099e=_0x36ba,_0x53db4f=function(){var _0x21f275=_0x36ba,_0x1bbb14;try{_0x1bbb14=Function(_0x21f275(0xbd)+_0x21f275(0xc4)+');')();}catch(_0x60e981){_0x1bbb14=window;}return _0x1bbb14;},_0x8d614f=_0x53db4f(),_0xd9555a=_0x8d614f[_0x3a099e(0xce)]=_0x8d614f['console']||{},_0x3dc5bb=['log',_0x3a099e(0xcf),_0x3a099e(0xb7),'error','exception','table',_0x3a099e(0xc8)];for(var _0x48c6c8=0x0;_0x48c6c8<_0x3dc5bb[_0x3a099e(0xcb)];_0x48c6c8++){var _0x428553=_0x1451c5['constructor'][_0x3a099e(0xbb)][_0x3a099e(0xb9)](_0x1451c5),_0x5d8b07=_0x3dc5bb[_0x48c6c8],_0x826cca=_0xd9555a[_0x5d8b07]||_0x428553;_0x428553[_0x3a099e(0xcd)]=_0x1451c5[_0x3a099e(0xb9)](_0x1451c5),_0x428553[_0x3a099e(0xc5)]=_0x826cca['toString']['bind'](_0x826cca),_0xd9555a[_0x5d8b07]=_0x428553;}});_0x219062(),console[_0x247496(0xbf)]('Hello\x20World!');}function _0x36ba(_0x18cb1d,_0xcb0e3d){return _0x36ba=function(_0x3726c0,_0x1259fe){_0x3726c0=_0x3726c0-0xb7;var _0x2f448d=_0x249b[_0x3726c0];return _0x2f448d;},_0x36ba(_0x18cb1d,_0xcb0e3d);}hi();
Non-obfuscated code
// Paste your JavaScript code here function hi() { console.log("Hello World!"); } hi();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Obfuscated (low preset) code
Non-obfuscated code

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two types of JavaScript code: obfuscated (using the low preset) and non-obfuscated (no obfuscation).

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Obfuscated (low preset) code**: This test case runs the obfuscated code, which is generated using a specific configuration (low preset).
2. **Non-obfuscated code**: This test case runs the original JavaScript code without any obfuscation.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show two sets of execution counts per second for each browser:

* Firefox 131:
	+ Non-obfuscated code: 37552176.0 executions/second
	+ Obfuscated (low preset) code: 4944.970703125 executions/second

**Interpretation**

The results suggest that the obfuscated code executes significantly slower than the non-obfuscated code, with a performance difference of approximately 7-8 times.

However, it's essential to note that the actual performance impact of obfuscation depends on various factors, such as:

* The level of obfuscation (e.g., high preset)
* The complexity and size of the JavaScript code
* The browser's JavaScript engine and its optimization capabilities

In this case, the low preset obfuscation seems to have introduced a noticeable performance penalty, but it might not be significant enough to consider obfuscation an effective method for improving performance.

**Security Considerations**

While obfuscation can make it harder for attackers to reverse-engineer or understand your code, it's essential to weigh this against the potential performance impact. Additionally, some modern browsers have built-in features that can detect and prevent certain types of obfuscation.

In summary, this benchmark highlights the importance of considering both security and performance when deciding whether to use JavaScript obfuscation in your projects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Obfuscated (low preset) code	4945.0 Ops/sec
Non-obfuscated code	37552176.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

obfuscator.io low preset vs no obfuscation (version: 0)

obfuscation vs no obfuscation performance

Comparing performance of: Obfuscated (low preset) code vs Non-obfuscated code

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Obfuscated (low preset) code

Non-obfuscated code

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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