Benchmark: string.charCodeAt(index) vs string[index].charCodeAt()

Script Preparation code:

var str = "some string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string heresome string here"

Tests:

charCodeAt(0)
str.charCodeAt(0)
charCodeAt(300)
str.charCodeAt(300)
[0].charCodeAt()
str[0].charCodeAt()
[300].charCodeAt()
str[300].charCodeAt()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
charCodeAt(0)
charCodeAt(300)
[0].charCodeAt()
[300].charCodeAt()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

ⓘ Get performance results from real users on your website with Request Metrics.

Website Performance Monitoring by Request Metrics

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 102 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
charCodeAt(0)	1596535000.0 Ops/sec
charCodeAt(300)	1595572000.0 Ops/sec
[0].charCodeAt()	78869400.0 Ops/sec
[300].charCodeAt()	78977690.0 Ops/sec

string.charCodeAt(index) vs string[index].charCodeAt() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: charCodeAt(0) vs charCodeAt(300) vs [0].charCodeAt() vs [300].charCodeAt()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

charCodeAt(0)

charCodeAt(300)

[0].charCodeAt()

[300].charCodeAt()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A