Benchmark: Equals vs underscore vs lodash

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.lodash = _;
  _ = null;
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.13.2/underscore-min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.underscore = _;
  _ = null;
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var str1 ="awesome";
var str2 = "no";

Tests:

underscore
underscore.isEqual(str1, str2);
lodash
lodash.isEqual(str1, str2);
eq
str1 === str2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
underscore
lodash
eq

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three equality checks: `str1 === str2`, `lodash.isEqual(str1, str2)`, and `underscore.isEqual(str1, str2)`.

**Options Compared**

There are two main approaches being compared:

1. **Native Equality Check (`str1 === str2`)**: This is a built-in equality check in JavaScript that uses the loose equality operator.
2. **Library-Provided Equality Check (`lodash.isEqual(str1, str2)` and `underscore.isEqual(str1, str2)`): These two approaches use external libraries to perform the equality checks.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native Equality Check (`str1 === str2`)**:
	+ Pros: Fast, lightweight, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected with non-trivial data types (e.g., NaN, Infinity) or special values (e.g., undefined, null).
* **Library-Provided Equality Check (`lodash.isEqual(str1, str2)`)**:
	+ Pros: Can handle more complex cases than native equality check, such as NaN and Infinity.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library to be included in the test, which can add overhead.
* **Library-Provided Equality Check (`underscore.isEqual(str1, str2)`)**:
	+ Pros: Similar to `lodash`, but with slightly different API (e.g., `equal` instead of `isEqual`).
	+ Cons: Same as above.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark:

* `lodash` is used for its `isEqual` function.
* `underscore` is used for its `isEqual` function, which is similar to `lodash.isEqual`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the tested approaches use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare these equality checks with other approaches, you could also consider:

* Using a custom implementation of equality check (e.g., using bitwise operations).
* Comparing performance with different data types (e.g., numbers, strings, objects).

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code includes the following:

* Sets up two variables `str1` and `str2` with different values.
* Includes the necessary libraries (`lodash` and `underscore`) and sets them to null, allowing for comparison between the native equality check and the library-provided approaches.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the benchmark!

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/99.0.4844.51 Safari/537.36 Edg/99.0.1150.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
underscore	3420808.8 Ops/sec
lodash	3554244.8 Ops/sec
eq	6709638.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Equals vs underscore vs lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: underscore vs lodash vs eq

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

underscore

lodash

eq

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):