Benchmark: Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = new Intl.NumberFormat(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', }).format(currencyPlayNumber);
Number.toLocaleString
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = currencyPlayNumber.toLocaleString(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Number.toLocaleString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: yesterday)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 131 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	16423.3 Ops/sec
Number.toLocaleString	20114.3 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test cases and results.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing two methods for formatting numbers as currency strings:

1. `Intl.NumberFormat`
2. `Number.toLocaleString`

Both methods are used to format a number (`currencyPlayNumber`) with a specific style (currency) and currency code ('RUB' for Russian Rubles).

**What options are compared?**

The benchmark is comparing the execution performance of two different JavaScript functions:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This method uses the `Intl` object, which is a part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API. It allows you to format numbers as currency strings with specific styles and locales.
2. **Number.toLocaleString**: This method is a standard JavaScript function that formats numbers as strings according to a specified locale.

**What are the pros/cons of those different approaches?**

Here's a brief summary:

* **Intl.NumberFormat**:
	+ Pros: More flexible and powerful, allowing for more complex formatting rules and localization.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to its additional features and overhead.
* **Number.toLocaleString**:
	+ Pros: Simpler and faster, as it only formats numbers according to a specific locale.
	+ Cons: Less flexible than Intl.NumberFormat, with limited customization options.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two methods, consider the following:

* If you need more control over formatting rules or want to support multiple locales, use `Intl.NumberFormat`.
* If you're working with simple currency formatting and don't need advanced features, use `Number.toLocaleString`.

**What is the library?**

In this case, there is no external library mentioned. The benchmark uses only standard JavaScript functions (`Intl.NumberFormat` and `Number.toLocaleString`) and built-in objects.

**Special JS feature or syntax?**

The test cases use some ES6+ features (const declarations, arrow functions), which are part of modern JavaScript standards. However, these features are not specific to the benchmark's purpose and can be ignored for understanding the comparison between `Intl.NumberFormat` and `Number.toLocaleString`.

**Other alternatives?**

If you're looking for alternative methods to format numbers as currency strings, consider using:

* **Formatting libraries**: Such as Lodash or Moment.js, which provide more advanced formatting features.
* **Third-party libraries**: Like numeral.js or accounting.js, which offer additional functionality for number formatting.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own trade-offs and use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):