Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON.parse + JSON.stringify

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Native structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);
JSON.parse
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Native structuredClone
JSON.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different methods for creating a deep copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. `Lodash cloneDeep`
2. `Native structuredClone` (implemented in modern browsers)
3. `JSON.parse + JSON.stringify`

**Method Comparisons**

### Lodash cloneDeep

* Purpose: A popular utility function from the Lodash library that creates a deep copy of an object.
* Pros:
	+ Widely used and well-maintained library.
	+ Provides additional features beyond basic copying (e.g., cloning arrays).
* Cons:
	+ Adds external dependency (Lodash) to the benchmarked codebase.
	+ May not be optimized for performance, as it uses a recursive approach.

### Native structuredClone

* Purpose: A modern browser API that creates a deep clone of an object.
* Pros:
	+ Optimized for performance by leveraging WebAssembly (WASM) under the hood.
	+ No external dependency required, as it's built into the browser engine.
* Cons:
	+ Limited support for older browsers and environments.
	+ May not work as expected with certain types of objects or data structures.

### JSON.parse + JSON.stringify

* Purpose: A simple, yet inefficient method that uses `JSON.parse` to convert an object to a string and then parses it again using `JSON.stringify`.
* Pros:
	+ No external dependencies required.
	+ Works across most browsers and environments.
* Cons:
	+ Slow performance due to the unnecessary parsing steps.
	+ May not work correctly with certain types of objects or data structures.

**Library Explanation**

The Lodash library is a popular collection of utility functions that can be used for various tasks, including copying objects. The `cloneDeep` function is specifically designed to create deep copies of objects, which makes it suitable for this benchmark.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided code. However, note that some browsers may support newer ECMAScript features (e.g., async/await, arrow functions) without explicit mention of them in the code.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash or want to explore other options, consider:

1. Built-in JavaScript methods: Some older browsers and environments may not have built-in support for modern JavaScript features. However, even older browsers like Internet Explorer can use `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Object.assign()` to create copies of objects.
2. Other cloning libraries: There are alternative libraries available that offer more efficient cloning mechanisms, such as `lodash-es` (a more modern and optimized version of Lodash) or `jsclonedeep`.
3. Custom implementation: Depending on your specific use case, you might be able to implement a custom cloning function using JavaScript's built-in data structures and operations.

Keep in mind that when choosing an alternative method, consider factors such as performance, maintainability, and compatibility with different browsers and environments.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	685521.6 Ops/sec
Native structuredClone	262733.0 Ops/sec
JSON.parse	460336.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON.parse + JSON.stringify (version: 0)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/structuredClone

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Native structuredClone vs JSON.parse

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Native structuredClone

JSON.parse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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