Benchmark: Vanilla JS, Cash and jQuery - GetText Speed Test

Vanilla JS, Cash and jQuery - GetText Speed Test (version: 20)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS .innerText vs Vanilla JS .innerHTML vs Vanilla JS .textContent vs Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerText vs Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerHTML vs Vanilla JS (querySelector) .textContent vs Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerText vs Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerHTML vs Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .textContent vs Cash .text vs Cash .html vs jQuery .text() vs jQuery .html() vs jQuery .find() .text() vs jQuery .find() .html()

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"><script>
<script>jQuery.noConflict();</script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/cash/7.0.3/cash.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo">Hello World</div>

AخA
 
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"><script>
<script>jQuery.noConflict();</script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/cash/7.0.3/cash.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo">Hello World</div>

Tests:

Vanilla JS .innerText
var el = document.getElementById("foo"); var text = el.innerText;
var el = document.getElementById("foo");
var text = el.innerText;
Vanilla JS .innerHTML
var el = document.getElementById("foo"); var text = el.innerHTML;
var el = document.getElementById("foo");
var text = el.innerHTML;
Vanilla JS .textContent
var el = document.getElementById("foo"); var text = el.textContent;
var el = document.getElementById("foo");
var text = el.textContent;
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerText
var el = document.querySelector("#foo"); var text = el.innerText;
var el = document.querySelector("#foo");
var text = el.innerText;
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerHTML
var el = document.querySelector("#foo"); var text = el.innerHTML;
var el = document.querySelector("#foo");
var text = el.innerHTML;
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .textContent
var el = document.querySelector("#foo"); var text = el.textContent;
var el = document.querySelector("#foo");
var text = el.textContent;
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerText
var el = document.querySelectorAll("#foo"); var text = el.innerText;
var el = document.querySelectorAll("#foo");
var text = el.innerText;
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerHTML
var el = document.querySelectorAll("#foo"); var text = el.innerHTML;
var el = document.querySelectorAll("#foo");
var text = el.innerHTML;
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .textContent
var el = document.querySelectorAll("#foo"); var text = el.textContent;
var el = document.querySelectorAll("#foo");
var text = el.textContent;
Cash .text
var text = $("#foo").text();
var text = $("#foo").text();
Cash .html
var text = $("#foo").html();
var text = $("#foo").html();
jQuery .text()
var text = jQuery("#foo").text();
var text = jQuery("#foo").text();
jQuery .html()
var text = jQuery("#foo").html();
var text = jQuery("#foo").html();
jQuery .find() .text()
var text = jQuery(document).find("#foo").text();
var text = jQuery(document).find("#foo").text();
jQuery .find() .html()
var text = jQuery(document).find("#foo").html();
var text = jQuery(document).find("#foo").html();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS .innerText
Vanilla JS .innerHTML
Vanilla JS .textContent
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerText
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerHTML
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .textContent
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerText
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerHTML
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .textContent
Cash .text
Cash .html
jQuery .text()
jQuery .html()
jQuery .find() .text()
jQuery .find() .html()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:106.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/106.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS .innerText	2403249.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS .innerHTML	6052508.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS .textContent	6097351.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerText	1848596.9 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .innerHTML	3653835.0 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS (querySelector) .textContent	3671760.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerText	1146966.2 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .innerHTML	1295210.1 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS (querySelectorAll) .textContent	1370492.6 Ops/sec
Cash .text	5085199.5 Ops/sec
Cash .html	3310898.8 Ops/sec
jQuery .text()	2858574.5 Ops/sec
jQuery .html()	2742344.8 Ops/sec
jQuery .find() .text()	1189870.5 Ops/sec
jQuery .find() .html()	1190930.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

A massive CSV string!

To answer your question, I'll need to parse the CSV string and extract the relevant information.

It seems that you're asking about the performance of Vanilla JavaScript on different browsers and devices. Specifically, you want to know how many executions per second for each test case.

After parsing the CSV string, I found a few interesting results:

For .html() method:
- Firefox 106: 2858574.5 executions per second
For .text() method:
- Firefox 106: 1189870.5 executions per second
For Vanilla JavaScript (querySelector) and .innerHTML property:
- Firefox 106: 1848596.875 executions per second

It's worth noting that the performance of Vanilla JavaScript can vary depending on the browser, device, and test case.

If you'd like to ask a more specific question or need further analysis, feel free to ask!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Related benchmarks: