Benchmark: Includes vs. IndexOf vs. Filter

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Includes()
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.includes(v => v === 0);
IndexOf()
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.indexOf(0) > -1 : withoutZero.indexOf(0) > -1;
Filter()
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes()
IndexOf()
Filter()

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/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Includes()	1692529.0 Ops/sec
IndexOf()	1595971.0 Ops/sec
Filter()	1652784.0 Ops/sec

Includes vs. IndexOf vs. Filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes() vs IndexOf() vs Filter()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes()

IndexOf()

Filter()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A