Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 1000

HTML Preparation code:

<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/markdown.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var conv = {
    marked: marked,
    cm: new commonmark.HtmlRenderer(),
    mdit: markdownit({
        html: true
    }),
    remarkable: new remarkable.Remarkable(),
    micromarkdown: window.micromarkdown,
    snarkdown: window.snarkdown,
    markdown: window.markdown
};

var pars = {
    cm: new commonmark.Parser()
};

function md() {
return "# 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:

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(),true);
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md());
markdown-wasm
try {conv.markdown.parse(md());} catch {return null};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Marked
CommonMark
Markdown-it
Remarkable
Micromarkdown
Snarkdown
markdown-wasm

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 break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of different JavaScript Markdown implementations: Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, Snarkdown, and markdown-wasm. The test creates a sample Markdown text and passes it through each implementation to render HTML.

**Test Cases**

Each test case compares the execution speed of one Markdown implementation against another. For example:

* `conv.marked(md());` tests Marked
* `conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md()));` tests CommonMark
* `conv.mdit.render(md());` tests Markdown-it
* And so on

**Implementation Libraries and Purposes**

Here's a brief overview of the libraries used in each implementation:

* **marked**: A lightweight Markdown parser. It's fast but doesn't render HTML.
* **commonmark**: A full-featured Markdown parser that also renders HTML.
* **markdown-it**: A lightweight Markdown parser with HTML rendering capabilities. It's similar to marked but more feature-rich.
* **remarkable**: A Markdown renderer that produces clean, semantic HTML.
* **micromarkdown**: A small and fast Markdown parser.
* **snarkdown**: A simple Markdown parser that also renders HTML.
* **markdown-wasm**: A web-based implementation of markdown-wasm, a WebAssembly-based Markdown parser.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Parse-only vs Render-only**: Some implementations (like marked and micromarkdown) only parse Markdown text without rendering HTML, while others (like commonmark and markdown-it) render HTML from the parsed text.
2. **Lightweight vs Full-featured**: Some implementations (like marked and markdown-wasm) are lightweight and simple, while others (like remarkable and commonmark) are more feature-rich.
3. **WebAssembly-based vs JavaScript-based**: markdown-wasm is a WebAssembly-based implementation, while others are JavaScript-based.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each implementation:

* **marked**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, fast parsing
	+ Cons: Only parses Markdown text, no HTML rendering
* **commonmark**:
	+ Pros: Full-featured, renders HTML, flexible
	+ Cons: Slower than lightweight implementations
* **markdown-it**:
	+ Pros: Fast, feature-rich, renders HTML
	+ Cons: More complex than marked or micromarkdown
* **remarkable**:
	+ Pros: Produces clean, semantic HTML, fast rendering
	+ Cons: More resource-intensive than others
* **micromarkdown**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, fast parsing, simple
	+ Cons: Limited features compared to other implementations
* **snarkdown**:
	+ Pros: Simple, lightweight, renders HTML
	+ Cons: Fewer features and slower performance than micromarkdown
* **markdown-wasm**:
	+ Pros: WebAssembly-based, fast, lightweight
	+ Cons: Requires modern web browsers to support WASM

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also shows the execution speed of each implementation on a desktop machine with Chrome 120. This provides insight into how well each implementation performs in real-world usage.

In conclusion, this benchmark helps compare the performance and features of various JavaScript Markdown implementations, providing insights for developers looking to choose an optimal solution for their use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	80040.6 Ops/sec
CommonMark	198287.9 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	164228.1 Ops/sec
Remarkable	208400.8 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	167927.6 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	172259.0 Ops/sec
markdown-wasm	210615.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 1000 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

Comparing performance of: Marked vs CommonMark vs Markdown-it vs Remarkable vs Micromarkdown vs Snarkdown vs markdown-wasm

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

markdown-wasm

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):