<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/axios/dist/axios.min.js"></script><script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/node-fetch@3.1.0/src/index.min.js"></script>fetch('https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis') .then(response => response.json()) .then(console.log)axios.get('https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis') .then((response) => response.json()) .then(console.log); --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
| Test case name | Result |
|---|---|
| node-fetch | |
| axios |
| Test name | Executions per second |
|---|---|
| node-fetch | 54054.3 Ops/sec |
| axios | 29833.2 Ops/sec |
Overview
The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, where two popular HTTP client libraries, node-fetch and axios, are compared for their performance.
What is tested
In this benchmark, the execution time of each library is measured when making an API request to retrieve information about Google's APIs. The test cases execute both libraries' methods (fetch() and get()) with the same URL.
Options compared
The two options being compared are:
Pros and Cons
Here are some pros and cons of each approach:
Library descriptions
Special JS features or syntax
In this benchmark, no special JavaScript features or syntax are used beyond the standard fetch() and get() methods provided by the libraries. However, axios also supports other features like promises, callbacks, and async/await.
Other alternatives
If you're considering alternative HTTP client libraries for Node.js or JavaScript, some popular options include:
Overall, the choice between node-fetch and axios depends on your specific needs and requirements. If you need a lightweight, easy-to-use library for basic HTTP requests, node-fetch might be the better choice. However, if you need a feature-rich library with support for JSON data, caching, and more, axios is likely a better fit.
