Benchmark: Math.random vs crypto.getRandomValues (reverse order)

Tests:

crypto API
crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))
Math.random
Math.random()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
crypto API
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 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 120 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
crypto API	110876.4 Ops/sec
Math.random	5316988.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for measuring the performance of `Math.random()` and the `crypto.getRandomValues()` function.

**What is being tested?**

Two separate benchmarks are being compared:

1. **`Math.random()`**: This function generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). The benchmark measures how fast this function can generate numbers.
2. **`crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))`**: This function generates a cryptographically secure random byte. It's designed to provide stronger randomness than `Math.random()`.

**Options compared:**

The two functions are being measured in their native implementations, with no additional optimizations or tweaks applied.

**Pros and Cons of the approaches:**

* **`Math.random()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, widely supported by most browsers.
	+ Cons: Not designed for security-critical applications; can be predictable (e.g., using a fixed seed).
* **`crypto.getRandomValues()`**:
	+ Pros: Designed for security-critical applications, provides stronger randomness.
	+ Cons: More complex to implement, may have performance overhead due to the underlying cryptographically secure algorithm.

**Other considerations:**

* Both functions use different algorithms to generate random numbers. `Math.random()` uses a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG), while `crypto.getRandomValues()` uses the AES-CBC-PKCS7-plain block cipher and SHA-256 hash function.
* The `crypto.getRandomValues()` implementation is designed to be cryptographically secure, making it suitable for generating secrets or non-repeating numbers.

**Library and purpose:**

The `crypto` library is a built-in JavaScript module that provides cryptographic functions. In this benchmark, the `getRandomValues()` method is used to generate a random byte array.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need stronger randomness than what `Math.random()` provides, you can consider using other libraries or modules, such as:

* `webcrypto`: A newer API for cryptography and random number generation in browsers.
* `random-bit` or `random-filler`: Third-party libraries that provide cryptographically secure random numbers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have performance overhead or additional dependencies.

Related benchmarks:

Math.random vs crypto.getRandomValues (reverse order) (version: 0)

Fast and quick test

Comparing performance of: crypto API vs Math.random

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

crypto API

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):