Benchmark: MD5 Performance Comparison

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/emn178/js-md5/build/md5.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/4.1.1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/4.1.1/md5.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/spark-md5/3.0.2/spark-md5.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/hash-wasm"></script>
<script src="http://www.myersdaily.org/joseph/javascript/md5.js"></script>
<script>
  function joseph_md5(s) {
    return hex(md51(s));
  }
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog';

Tests:

js-md5
md5(str);
CryptoJS
CryptoJS.MD5(str).toString();
SparkMD5
SparkMD5.hash(str);
Hash-WASM
hashwasm.md5(str);
joseph-md5
joseph_md5(str);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
js-md5
CryptoJS
SparkMD5
Hash-WASM
joseph-md5

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
js-md5	688432.5 Ops/sec
CryptoJS	464288.1 Ops/sec
SparkMD5	1101909.4 Ops/sec
Hash-WASM	1220428.5 Ops/sec
joseph-md5	667669.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of five different MD5 hashing algorithms: `js-md5`, `CryptoJS`, `SparkMD5`, `Hash-WASM`, and `joseph_md5`. Each algorithm is compared in isolation, with a fixed input string ("The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog") used for each test case.

**Options Compared**

1. **js-md5**: A custom JavaScript implementation of MD5 hashing.
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to implement, and potentially optimized for specific use cases.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient or reliable as other implementations, especially with large inputs.
2. **CryptoJS**: A widely-used JavaScript library for cryptographic functions, including MD5 hashing.
	* Pros: Well-maintained, widely adopted, and provides additional security features beyond basic hashing.
	* Cons: Adds overhead due to the full library being loaded, which may not be necessary for just MD5 hashing.
3. **SparkMD5**: A JavaScript implementation of SparkMD5, a variant of MD5 that uses parallel processing.
	* Pros: Can potentially provide better performance than traditional MD5 implementations.
	* Cons: May require more resources (CPU and memory) due to parallel processing.
4. **Hash-WASM**: A WebAssembly-based implementation of MD5 hashing.
	* Pros: Provides a lightweight, fast, and secure option for Web applications.
	* Cons: Requires WebAssembly support in browsers or environments, which may not be universal.
5. **joseph_md5**: Another custom JavaScript implementation of MD5 hashing, similar to `js-md5`.
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to implement, and potentially optimized for specific use cases.
	* Cons: Similar to `js-md5`, with potential performance limitations.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **CryptoJS**: A JavaScript library for cryptographic functions, including hash functions like MD5. It provides additional features beyond basic hashing, such as password storage and encryption.
2. **SparkMD5**: A JavaScript implementation of SparkMD5, a variant of MD5 that uses parallel processing to improve performance. It is designed to be fast and secure.

**Special JS Features**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Firefox 131 as the testing browser, which may not represent all possible browsers or environments.
* The input string used for each test case is fixed and relatively short. This may not accurately reflect real-world use cases where input strings can vary greatly in length and complexity.
* The `Hash-WASM` implementation relies on WebAssembly support, which may not be universal across all platforms.

**Alternative Implementations**

Other MD5 hashing implementations available include:

1. OpenSSL (C library): A widely-used, well-established cryptographic library that includes an MD5 implementation.
2. JavaScript libraries like Crypto-JS, Lodash, and others, which offer MD5 hashing as part of their broader cryptographic functionality.
3. Custom implementations like those provided by `js-md5` and `joseph_md5`, which can be optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements.

In summary, the benchmark compares five different MD5 hashing algorithms, each with its pros and cons. The choice of implementation depends on factors such as performance requirements, security needs, and resource constraints.

Related benchmarks:

MD5 Performance Comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: js-md5 vs CryptoJS vs SparkMD5 vs Hash-WASM vs joseph-md5

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

js-md5

CryptoJS

SparkMD5

Hash-WASM

joseph-md5

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):