Benchmark: Sha256-2 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/sjcl/1.0.6/sjcl.min.js"></script>
<script 
src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/cryptico/0.0.1343522940/cryptico.min.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/3.1.9-1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Uint32Array(1024);
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(data);
  var dataBuffer = new Uint8Array(data);
  data = String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer);
  
  
  // src: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypto/digest
  function hex(buffer) {
    var hexCodes = [];
    var view = new DataView(buffer);
    for (var i = 0; i < view.byteLength; i += 4) {
      // Using getUint32 reduces the number of iterations needed (we process 4 bytes each time)
      var value = view.getUint32(i)
      // toString(16) will give the hex representation of the number without padding
      var stringValue = value.toString(16)
      // We use concatenation and slice for padding
      var padding = '00000000'
      var paddedValue = (padding + stringValue).slice(-padding.length)
      hexCodes.push(paddedValue);
    }
  
    // Join all the hex strings into one
    return hexCodes.join("");
  }

Tests:

Cryptico
SHA256(data);
Crypto.js
CryptoJS.SHA256(data);
sjcl
sjcl.hash.sha256.hash(data);
window.crypto
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-256", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) { hex(hash);});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cryptico
Crypto.js
sjcl
window.crypto

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON.

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of different libraries for hashing and generating SHA-256 hashes in JavaScript.

Here are the options being compared:

1. **Cryptico**: A JavaScript library that provides cryptographic functions, including hashing.
2. **Crypto.js**: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography and encryption.
3. **sjcl** (Simple-JavaScript Cryptography Library): A lightweight JavaScript library for cryptographic primitives.
4. **window.crypto**: The Web Cryptography API, a built-in feature of modern browsers that allows for secure cryptographic operations.

The pros and cons of each approach:

* **Cryptico**, **Crypto.js**, and **sjcl** are external libraries that need to be included in the benchmark code. They provide pre-built functions for hashing and encryption, which can be efficient but also introduce dependencies and potential security risks.
	+ Pros: Easy to use, well-maintained, and widely adopted.
	+ Cons: Adds extra dependencies, may not be optimized for performance or security.
* **window.crypto** is a built-in feature of modern browsers that provides a secure way to perform cryptographic operations. It's a more lightweight and secure option than external libraries.
	+ Pros: Built-in, no additional dependencies, and optimized for security.
	+ Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments.

The benchmark code prepares the input data by generating a random array of 1024 Uint32 values and converting it to a string. The hashing function is then applied to this string using each of the four options.

The `hex` function is used to generate the SHA-256 hash as a hexadecimal string. It's implemented in the benchmark code and uses the `DataView` API to read theUint32 values from the input array.

Some notes on the test cases:

* The **window.crypto** option uses the Web Cryptography API's `digest` method, which is a standardized way of performing cryptographic operations.
* The **sjcl** option uses the `hash` function, which is a specific implementation of the SHA-256 algorithm in sjcl.
* The **Crypto.js** and **Cryptico** options use their respective `SHA256` functions to generate the hash.

In terms of special JavaScript features or syntax, none are mentioned explicitly. However, the use of `DataView` and `getUint32` is specific to modern browsers that support these APIs.

Overall, this benchmark aims to compare the performance of different libraries for hashing and generating SHA-256 hashes in JavaScript, as well as the built-in Web Cryptography API on modern browsers.

As for alternative approaches, some options could be considered:

* Using a different library or implementation for hashing, such as OpenSSL or a custom implementation.
* Comparing the performance of different browser engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) or environments (e.g., Node.js, WebAssembly).
* Adding more test cases to cover other cryptographic operations, such as encryption and decryption.

However, the current benchmark provides a good starting point for comparing the performance of popular libraries and the built-in Web Cryptography API.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/102.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cryptico	17949.0 Ops/sec
Crypto.js	31628.8 Ops/sec
sjcl	32516.8 Ops/sec
window.crypto	500828.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Sha256-2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cryptico vs Crypto.js vs sjcl vs window.crypto

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cryptico

Crypto.js

sjcl

window.crypto

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):