Benchmark: MD5 Performance Comparison (v2)

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="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/joseph-md5/joseph-md5@dd8a9eb1575f294abfcf79106007c90fffab8c72/joseph-md5.js"></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
josephMD5(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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of five different MD5 hash algorithms implemented in JavaScript: js-md5, CryptoJS, SparkMD5, Hash-WASM, and joseph-md5. The benchmark aims to determine which algorithm is the fastest and most efficient.

**Algorithm Options Compared**

1. **js-md5**: A lightweight, pure-JavaScript implementation of the MD5 algorithm.
2. **CryptoJS.MD5(str)**: A part of the Crypto-JS library, a widely used JavaScript encryption library. This implementation uses the FIPS 180-4 standard for hash generation.
3. **SparkMD5.hash(str)**: A high-performance, parallelized implementation of the MD5 algorithm using WebAssembly (WASM).
4. **hashwasm.md5(str)**: Another WASM-based implementation of the MD5 algorithm.
5. **josephMD5(str)**: A JavaScript library specifically designed for fast and secure hash computations.

**Pros and Cons**

* **js-md5**: Simple, lightweight, and easy to use, but may be slower than other implementations due to its simplicity.
* **CryptoJS.MD5(str)**: Widely used, well-documented, and reliable, but may have performance overhead due to the encryption library's features.
* **SparkMD5.hash(str)**: High-performance, parallelized, and optimized for WebAssembly, making it a good choice for browser-based applications. However, may require additional setup and configuration.
* **hashwasm.md5(str)**: Another high-performance WASM implementation, but its performance may vary depending on the specific use case and hardware.
* **josephMD5(str)**: Optimized for speed and security, with features like parallelization and collision resistance. However, may require more setup and configuration than other libraries.

**Library and Syntax Features**

* **Crypto-JS**: A widely used JavaScript encryption library that provides various cryptographic primitives, including hash functions.
	+ Purpose: Provides secure encryption and decryption capabilities for sensitive data.
* **SparkMD5**: A high-performance, parallelized implementation of the MD5 algorithm specifically designed for WebAssembly.
	+ Purpose: Optimizes performance for browser-based applications using WASM.
* **Hash-WASM**: Another WASM-based implementation of the MD5 algorithm.
	+ Purpose: Provides high-performance hash computation capabilities in a browser or Node.js environment.

**Special JS Features**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Chrome and Node.js), have built-in support for WebAssembly and provide optimized performance for WASM-based libraries.

**Alternatives**

* Other MD5 implementations available online, such as OpenSSL or libmd5.
* Alternative hash algorithms, like SHA-256 or BLAKE2, which may offer better security features but slower performance.

In summary, the benchmark compares five different JavaScript MD5 implementations, each with its strengths and weaknesses. The choice of algorithm depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and desired level of security.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/120.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
js-md5	182412.7 Ops/sec
CryptoJS	71128.2 Ops/sec
SparkMD5	138049.9 Ops/sec
Hash-WASM	258366.8 Ops/sec
joseph-md5	77755.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

MD5 Performance Comparison (v2) (version: 0)

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

Created: 10 months 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 26 days ago):