Benchmark: Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat (prepared)

Script Preparation code:

window.predefinedFormatter = new Intl.NumberFormat(undefined, {
    style: 'currency',
    currency: 'RUB',
})

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = window.predefinedFormatter.format(currencyPlayNumber);
Number.toLocaleString
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = currencyPlayNumber.toLocaleString(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Number.toLocaleString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark and explore what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to format a currency string: using `Intl.NumberFormat` ( Intl ) vs `Number.toLocaleString` ( Local ).

**Options Compared**

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This method uses the Internationalization API to format a number as a currency string.
2. **Number.toLocaleString**: This method uses the built-in `toLocaleString` method of the `Number` object to format a number as a currency string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Intl.NumberFormat**

Pros:

* Provides more control over formatting options (e.g., style, currency code)
* Supports more languages and date formats
* Can be used for other types of numeric formatting

Cons:

* May have a higher overhead due to the use of internationalization APIs
* May not be supported by older browsers

**Number.toLocaleString**

Pros:

* Generally faster and more lightweight
* Widely supported across modern browsers
* Simple and intuitive API

Cons:

* Limited control over formatting options (e.g., style, currency code)
* May not work as expected for non-English languages or date formats

**Library: Intl.NumberFormat**

The `Intl.NumberFormat` library is part of the Internationalization API in JavaScript. It provides a way to format numbers as currency strings, taking into account the user's locale and preferences. The library offers more control over formatting options than the built-in `toLocaleString` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to format numbers as currency strings, but don't want to use the `Intl.NumberFormat` library, you could consider using other libraries like:

* moment.js (for formatting dates and times)
* numeral.js (for formatting numbers)

Alternatively, if you only need basic currency formatting, you might consider using a library like highcharts or chartjs, which provide built-in support for formatted currency values.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code sets up the `Intl.NumberFormat` library with specific formatting options:
```javascript
window.predefinedFormatter = new Intl.NumberFormat(undefined, {
  style: 'currency',
  currency: 'RUB'
});
```
This code creates a new instance of the `Intl.NumberFormat` library, passing in an undefined locale (which means it will use the system's default locale) and specific formatting options for Russian rubles (`'RUB'`). This instance is then assigned to the `window.predefinedFormatter` variable.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	2069713.6 Ops/sec
Number.toLocaleString	31507.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat (prepared) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):