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

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.__date__ = new Date();
window.__luxon__ = luxon.DateTime.fromJSDate(__date__);
window.__moment__ = moment(__date__);
window.__dayjs__ = dayjs(__date__);

Tests:

datefns
dateFns.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD');
luxon
__luxon__.toFormat('yyyy/MM/dd');
moment
__moment__.format('YYYY/MM/DD');
dayjs
__dayjs__.format('YYYY/MM/DD');

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: 25 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
datefns	1053706.0 Ops/sec
luxon	1152270.2 Ops/sec
moment	2141271.2 Ops/sec
dayjs	532868.7 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 and explore what's being tested in this particular benchmark.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of four different date formatting libraries: Luxon, Date-fns, Moment.js, and Day.js. The test is designed to measure the execution time of each library when formatting dates using specific formats (YYYY/MM/DD).

**Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a single benchmark definition in JSON format, which specifies the date value and the format string to be used for testing. There are four test cases:

1. `dateFns.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD');`: Uses the Date-fns library.
2. `__luxon__.toFormat('yyyy/MM/dd');`: Uses Luxon.
3. `__moment__.format('YYYY/MM/DD');`: Uses Moment.js.
4. `__dayjs__.format('YYYY/MM/DD');`: Uses Day.js.

**Library and Purpose**

Here's a brief overview of each library:

1. **Date-fns**: A lightweight, modular date formatting library that aims to be highly performant and flexible.
2. **Luxon**: A modern date and time library developed by Pimkroese, which provides a robust set of features for working with dates and times in JavaScript.
3. **Moment.js**: A widely used, popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times, known for its ease of use and extensive feature set.
4. **Day.js**: A lightweight, fast, and highly performant date formatting library that's gaining popularity.

**Options Compared**

The test compares the performance of each library when formatting dates using specific formats:

* `YYYY/MM/DD` (Year/Month/Day)
* `yyyy/MM/dd` (Year/Month/Day, with lowercase year)

The options being compared are essentially the same in terms of format string, but differ in implementation and syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief pros and cons analysis for each library:

1. **Date-fns**:
	* Pros: Highly performant, modular, and flexible.
	* Cons: May require more setup and configuration than other libraries.
2. **Luxon**:
	* Pros: Robust feature set, high performance, and modern architecture.
	* Cons: Steeper learning curve due to its functional programming style.
3. **Moment.js**:
	* Pros: Extremely popular, extensive feature set, and easy to use.
	* Cons: May be slower than other libraries due to its complexity and overhead.
4. **Day.js**:
	* Pros: Highly performant, lightweight, and easy to use.
	* Cons: Less features compared to other libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the libraries mentioned in this benchmark use special JavaScript features or syntax that require a deep understanding of modern JavaScript programming concepts. However, if you're interested in exploring these features, you can look into topics like:

* Arrow functions
* Classes and prototypes
* Async/await
* Promises

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative date formatting libraries, here are some options to consider:

1. **Date.js**: Another lightweight date library that's gaining popularity.
2. **Moment-Timezone**: An extension of Moment.js that provides support for timezones and other advanced features.
3. **ms**: A small, fast, and highly performant date library developed by the creators of Date-fns.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific needs and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

luxon vs datefns vs moment vs dayjs (formatting) (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):