Benchmark: luxon vs datefns vs moment vs dayjs (parsing)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dayjs/1.10.7/dayjs.min.js" integrity="sha512-bwD3VD/j6ypSSnyjuaURidZksoVx3L1RPvTkleC48SbHCZsemT3VKMD39KknPnH728LLXVMTisESIBOAb5/W0Q==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/luxon/2.3.0/luxon.min.js" integrity="sha512-2j5fkjQ4q5ceXgfxi+kqrU2Oz234MrpyywZsQz1F5OGnfat7mOhjRr0oz5cpQ+YwwWB+hhDBSyxNGuL/tKWMFw==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/date-fns/1.30.1/date_fns.min.js" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.29.1/moment.min.js" integrity="sha512-qTXRIMyZIFb8iQcfjXWCO8+M5Tbc38Qi5WzdPOYZHIlZpzBHG3L3by84BBBOiRGiEb7KKtAOAs5qYdUiZiQNNQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = "2022-01-12T00:51:53.623839+00:00";

Tests:

datefns
dateFns.parse(window.ds)
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);
moment
moment(ds)
dayjs
dayjs(ds)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
datefns
luxon
moment
dayjs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 12_6_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.41 YaBrowser/21.2.0.2458 Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 21 on Mac OS X 12.6.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
datefns	396700.3 Ops/sec
luxon	191877.4 Ops/sec
moment	50575.5 Ops/sec
dayjs	293922.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition json represents a set of tests designed to compare the performance of four popular date parsing libraries: Luxon, DateFns, Moment.js, and Day.js.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. `datefns.parse(window.ds)`: This test case uses the `parse` function from the DateFns library to parse a given date string.
2. `luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);`: This test case uses the `DateTime.fromISO` function from Luxon to parse a given ISO-formatted date string.
3. `moment(ds)`: This test case uses the `moment` function from Moment.js to parse a given date string.
4. `dayjs(ds)`: This test case uses the `ds` method from Day.js to parse a given date string.

**Library and Purpose**

Here's a brief overview of each library:

1. **DateFns**: DateFns is a modern JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It provides a simple and intuitive API for parsing, formatting, and manipulating dates.
2. **Luxon**: Luxon is another popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It's known for its high performance and ease of use.
3. **Moment.js**: Moment.js is a widely used JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It provides a robust API for parsing, formatting, and manipulating dates, but can be slower than other libraries like DateFns or Luxon.
4. **Day.js**: Day.js is a lightweight JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It's designed to be fast and efficient, making it suitable for applications that require high performance.

**Options Compared**

In each test case, the only option being compared is the parsing of the same date string using different libraries. The raw execution time (in executions per second) is used as the metric to compare performance.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each library:

1. **DateFns**: Pros: High performance, easy to use, modern API. Cons: May not be suitable for very large date ranges or complex date calculations.
2. **Luxon**: Pros: High performance, easy to use, robust API. Cons: May have a steeper learning curve due to its unique approach.
3. **Moment.js**: Pros: Robust API, widely supported. Cons: Can be slower than other libraries and may require more memory usage.
4. **Day.js**: Pros: Lightweight, high performance, easy to use. Cons: Limited features compared to other libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the test cases specifically target special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that some libraries (like Luxon) may have unique approaches or features that can impact performance in certain scenarios.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative date parsing libraries, here are a few options:

1. **JSDate**: A lightweight JavaScript library for working with dates and times.
2. **Moment-timezone**: An extension of Moment.js that provides additional functionality for working with time zones.
3. **Day.js alternatives**: While Day.js is a lightweight library, there may be alternative libraries that offer similar features but with different performance characteristics.

In conclusion, the provided benchmark definition json represents a set of tests designed to compare the performance of four popular date parsing libraries: Luxon, DateFns, Moment.js, and Day.js. Each test case uses a single library to parse a given date string, allowing users to compare the raw execution time of each library.

Related benchmarks:

luxon vs datefns vs moment vs dayjs (parsing) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: datefns vs luxon vs moment vs dayjs

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

datefns

luxon

moment

dayjs

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):