Benchmark: Math.floor(Math.random()) vs crypto.getRandom

Tests:

Math.random()
Math.random()
crypto.getRandomValues()
crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(1))[0] / 4294967296
Math.floor(Math.random())
Math.floor(Math.random())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.random()
crypto.getRandomValues()
Math.floor(Math.random())

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 13; SM-A536N) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 112 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.random()	2904300.0 Ops/sec
crypto.getRandomValues()	206562.9 Ops/sec
Math.floor(Math.random())	1534388.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare three different approaches for generating random numbers in JavaScript: `Math.random()`, `crypto.getRandomValues()`, and `Math.floor(Math.random())`.

**Options Compared**

1. **`Math.random()`**: This function generates a pseudo-random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive).
2. **`crypto.getRandomValues()`**: This function generates cryptographically secure random numbers.
3. **`Math.floor(Math.random())`**: This approach combines `Math.random()` with the `floor()` method to generate an integer value.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **`Math.random()`**:
    *   Pros: Easy to use, widely supported, and fast.
    *   Cons: Pseudo-random numbers can be predictable if not used carefully (e.g., when seeded with a fixed value).
*   **`crypto.getRandomValues()`**:
    *   Pros: Provides cryptographically secure random numbers, suitable for generating secrets or non-cryptographic randomness.
    *   Cons: Can be slower than `Math.random()`, and its API is less well-known among developers. Requires the `crypto` module to be imported, which might not be included in all projects.
*   **`Math.floor(Math.random())`**:
    *   Pros: Can produce a useful integer value from a pseudo-random number.
    *   Cons: Still uses `Math.random()`, which means it inherits its limitations.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The benchmark includes the `crypto` module, which provides access to cryptographic functions, including `getRandomValues()`. This function is designed to generate cryptographically secure random numbers, making it suitable for applications where high security is required.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code and HTML Preparation Code**

The provided JSON does not include any code or HTML preparation code. The benchmark relies on the default behavior of the tested functions, without any additional setup or customization.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives for generating random numbers in JavaScript include:

*   `window.crypto.getRandomValues()`: This function is similar to `crypto.getRandomValues()` but can be called directly from the browser's global scope.
*   `Web Cryptography API`: A more comprehensive library for cryptographic functions, including `getRandomValues()`.
*   External libraries like `random-js` or `random-seed`, which provide alternative implementations of random number generation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own trade-offs and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Math.floor(Math.random()) vs crypto.getRandom (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.random() vs crypto.getRandomValues() vs Math.floor(Math.random())

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.random()

crypto.getRandomValues()

Math.floor(Math.random())

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):