Benchmark: Object.is() or === for object comparison

Tests:

Object.is()
var foo = {}; var bar = {}; console.log(Object.is(foo, bar));
===
var foo = {}; var bar = {}; console.log(foo === bar);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.is()
===

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/100.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 100 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.is()	40402.4 Ops/sec
===	40807.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for testing object comparison in JavaScript using `Object.is()` and the double equals (`==`) operator. The benchmark is designed to compare two objects, `foo` and `bar`, which are initialized as empty objects. The objective of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between using `Object.is()` and the traditional equality check (`===`) for object comparison.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **`Object.is()`**: This method checks whether two values are identical, including their type. It returns a boolean value indicating whether the two values are equal.
2. **`== (double equals)`**: This operator performs a loose equality check between two values, including comparing their types and values. However, it can lead to unexpected behavior when comparing objects.

**Pros and Cons**

**`Object.is()`**:

Pros:

* Provides more accurate results for object comparison
* Can handle complex object hierarchies and nested properties

Cons:

* Slower than traditional equality checks due to the additional overhead of checking types
* May not perform well with large objects or deep hierarchies

**`== (double equals)`**:

Pros:

* Faster than `Object.is()` due to its simpler comparison logic
* Often used in everyday JavaScript development for simple object comparisons

Cons:

* Can lead to unexpected behavior when comparing objects, as it checks types and values separately
* May not work correctly with complex object hierarchies or nested properties

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between `Object.is()` and the double equals operator, consider the following:

* Use `Object.is()` when working with complex object hierarchies or nested properties.
* Use the double equals operator for simple object comparisons where accuracy is not critical.

**Library: none**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature/syntax: none**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code and Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark preparation code is empty, indicating that the script does not require any initialization or setup before running the benchmark. The individual test cases use simple object comparisons to demonstrate the performance difference between `Object.is()` and the double equals operator.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to measure the performance of other object comparison methods or syntax features, consider the following alternatives:

* Use a different equality check method, such as `===` with explicit type checks.
* Test with more complex object hierarchies or nested properties to see how different approaches handle edge cases.
* Explore other benchmarking tools and frameworks, such as Benchmark.js or Micrometaphysics.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Related benchmarks:

Object.is() or === for object comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.is() vs ===

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.is()

===

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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