Benchmark: Jquery 2 vs 3 vs 3Slim

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.slim.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq360s = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq360 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li>      <li class="menu-item">4</li> 
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({
      "background-color": "green"
    })).end().end().remove();
  console.log('tests' + $);
}

Tests:

tests($jq224);
$jq224
tests($jq360s);
$jq360s
tests($jq360);
$jq360

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
tests($jq224);
tests($jq360s);
tests($jq360);

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript libraries and frameworks is crucial for ensuring they are optimized, efficient, and meet the demands of modern web applications.

The provided benchmark defines three test cases:

1.  **Jquery 2 vs 3 vs 3Slim**: This test case compares the performance of jQuery 2, jQuery 3, and jQuery 3 Slim (a slimmed-down version of jQuery 3) in a specific scenario.
2.  **Individual Test Cases**: These are isolated tests that measure the performance of `$jq224`, `$jq360s`, and `$jq360`, which are likely instances of jQuery.

**Options Compared:**

*   **jQuery 2 vs jQuery 3 vs jQuery 3 Slim**: The main difference between these versions is their feature set, size, and complexity. jQuery 2 is an older version that supports features like `.prop()` and `.val()`. jQuery 3 is the current stable version with improved performance, security, and compatibility. jQuery 3 Slim is a more compact version of jQuery 3, optimized for smaller projects.
*   **$jq224 vs $jq360s vs $jq360**: These options represent different instances of jQuery. The `$jq224` instance likely uses jQuery noConflict mode to prevent conflicts with other libraries or scripts. In contrast, `$jq360s` and `$jq360` do not use noConflict mode, suggesting that they might be used in a different context where library conflicts are less common.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **jQuery 2 vs jQuery 3 vs jQuery 3 Slim**: jQuery 2 is still supported for older projects, but it has limitations compared to jQuery 3. jQuery 3 Slim offers a balance between performance and size.
*   **$jq224 vs $jq360s vs $jq360**: Using noConflict mode (`$jq224`) can help prevent conflicts with other libraries or scripts, but it might introduce additional overhead due to the extra checks performed by jQuery.

**Other Considerations:**

*   **Browser Support:** The benchmark results indicate that Chrome 129 is used as the test browser. However, real-world applications may require support for multiple browsers.
*   **Device Platform and Operating System:** The results are specific to desktop devices running Windows. Mobile devices or other platforms might require separate benchmarks.

**Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative JavaScript libraries or frameworks, consider:

*   **Lodash**: A utility library that provides a lot of features similar to jQuery but with better performance.
*   **Preact**: A lightweight alternative to React, which can be used as a replacement for jQuery.
*   **Pure JavaScript libraries:** Libraries like Moment.js (date handling), Lodash (utility functions), or Ramda (functional programming utilities) that provide specific functionality without the overhead of a full-fledged framework.

These alternatives might not offer the same level of support as jQuery, but they can be more efficient and tailored to your project's needs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
tests($jq224);	18772882.0 Ops/sec
tests($jq360s);	18451266.0 Ops/sec
tests($jq360);	16862374.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Jquery 2 vs 3 vs 3Slim (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: tests($jq224); vs tests($jq360s); vs tests($jq360);

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

tests($jq224);

tests($jq360s);

tests($jq360);

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):