Run results for: Ramda vs. Lodash vs Natice (filter, find)

Run details:

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.54 Safari/537.36

Browser: Chrome 95

Operating system: Windows

Device Platform: Desktop

Date tested: 2 years ago

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash filter	491.0 Ops/sec
Ramda filter	512.3 Ops/sec
Native filter	1099.4 Ops/sec
Lodash find	182722.8 Ops/sec
Ramda find	8717.7 Ops/sec
Native find	877718.1 Ops/sec

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var fp = _.noConflict();

var data = _.range(10000).map(function(i) {
  return {counter: i}
});

function isOdd(num) {
  return num % 2 === 1;
}

Tests:

Lodash filter
var result = _.filter(data, isOdd);
Ramda filter
var result = R.filter(isOdd, data);
Native filter
var result = data.filter(({counter}) => isOdd(counter));
Lodash find
var result = _.find(data, {counter: 859});
Ramda find
var result = R.find(R.propEq('counter', 859), data);
Native find
var result = data.find(({counter}) => counter === 859);

Run results for: Ramda vs. Lodash vs Natice (filter, find)

Compares performance on the same tasks using Lodash vs Ramda vs Native.

Lodash filter

Ramda filter

Native filter

Lodash find

Ramda find

Native find