Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 10

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/showdown@1.9.1/dist/showdown.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/marked@1.1.0/marked.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/commonmark@0.29.1/dist/commonmark.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/markdown-it@11.0.0/dist/markdown-it.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/remarkable@2.0.1/dist/remarkable.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/micromarkdown@0.3.0/dist/micromarkdown.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/snarkdown@1.2.2/dist/snarkdown.umd.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://lukeuser.cacus.feralhosting.com/remarked.js.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var conv = {
  showdown: new showdown.Converter(),
  marked: marked,
  cm: new commonmark.HtmlRenderer(),
  mdit: markdownit({ html: true }),
  remarkable: new remarkable.Remarkable(),
  micromarkdown: window.micromarkdown,
  snarkdown: window.snarkdown,
  remarker: new reMarked()
};

var pars = {
  cm: new commonmark.Parser()
};

var md = "# The Static, Static Blog Generator\n\n### May 17th, 2014\n\nWe all like *publishing* our thoughts online - but why is it `such` a bother to run a CMS?\n\nManaging databases, `updating` software, and keeping `track` of our *content* often cuts into the *most* important activity: *expressing ourselves*.\n\nThe web makes it really __easy to share__ our thoughts with millions of __individuals__ from around the world.";

Tests:

Showdown.js
conv.showdown.makeHtml(md);
Marked
conv.marked(md);
CommonMark
conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md));
Markdown-it
conv.mdit.render(md);
Remarkable
conv.remarkable.render(md);
Micromarkdown
conv.micromarkdown.parse(md);
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md);
reMarked.js
conv.remarker.render(md);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Showdown.js
Marked
CommonMark
Markdown-it
Remarkable
Micromarkdown
Snarkdown
reMarked.js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of Markdown performance comparison.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of different JavaScript libraries for rendering Markdown text:

1. `showdown`
2. `marked`
3. `commonmark` (for Common Mark syntax)
4. `markdown-it`
5. `remarkable`
6. `micromarkdown`
7. `snarkdown`
8. `reMarked.js`

Each library is tested by parsing and rendering a sample Markdown text, which in this case is the static blog post provided in the "md" variable.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each library under different conditions:

* Parsing and rendering time
* Number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Showdown.js**: Pro: Lightweight, Easy to use. Con: Limited features compared to other libraries.
2. **Marked**: Pro: Fast, Feature-rich. Con: Can be overwhelming for beginners due to its extensive feature set.
3. **CommonMark**: Pro: Standardized syntax, Wide adoption in the community. Con: May not support all Markdown features out of the box.
4. **Markdown-it**: Pro: Highly customizable, Fast rendering. Con: Steeper learning curve due to its many options and plugins.
5. **Remarkable**: Pro: Easy to use, Fast rendering. Con: Limited customization options compared to other libraries.
6. **Micromarkdown**: Pro: Compact, Fast rendering. Con: Limited features compared to other libraries.
7. **Snarkdown**: Pro: Lightweight, Fast rendering. Con: Limited support for advanced Markdown features.
8. **reMarked.js**: Pro: Similar to Remarkable, but with more customization options. Con: May require more setup and configuration.

**Interpretation of the benchmark results**

The benchmark shows that:

* `remarkable` and `reMarked.js` are among the fastest libraries for rendering Markdown text.
* `markdown-it` is also fast, but its customizability can be both a pro and a con.
* `micromarkdown` and `snarkdown` are compact and fast, but limited in their features.
* `showdown.js` and `marked` are lightweight, but may not offer the same level of performance as other libraries.

**Conclusion**

The choice of Markdown library depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preferences. If you need a simple, lightweight solution, `showdown.js` or `marked` might be suitable. However, if you require more advanced features, customization options, or faster rendering times, consider one of the other libraries.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Showdown.js	4659.7 Ops/sec
Marked	19722.2 Ops/sec
CommonMark	20994.3 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	21340.1 Ops/sec
Remarkable	30137.0 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	46090.2 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	29351.0 Ops/sec
reMarked.js	36961.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 10 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

Comparing performance of: Showdown.js vs Marked vs CommonMark vs Markdown-it vs Remarkable vs Micromarkdown vs Snarkdown vs reMarked.js

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Showdown.js

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

reMarked.js

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):