Benchmark: luxon vs datefns vs moment vs Date

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://igor.moomers.org/random/datefns.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00";

Tests:

datefns
window.datefns.parseISO(window.ds)
luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(ds);
moment
moment(ds)
Date
new Date(ds)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
datefns
luxon
moment
Date

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of four different date parsing libraries: Luxon, Datefns, Moment.js, and native JavaScript `Date` object.

**Library Explanation**

1. **Luxon**: A modern JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It's designed to be fast, efficient, and easy to use.
2. **Datefns**: A lightweight JavaScript library for date manipulation and formatting. It's known for its simplicity and ease of use.
3. **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times. It offers a wide range of features and is widely used in web applications.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each library when parsing a specific ISO-formatted date string: `2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+00:00`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Luxon**: Pros:
	* Fast and efficient (most executions per second)
	* Modern design with strong focus on performance
	* Offers a range of features, including timezone support
2. **Datefns**: Pros:
	* Lightweight and easy to use
	* Simple and straightforward API
	* Well-suited for simple date manipulation tasks
3. **Moment.js**: Pros:
	* Mature and widely adopted (big community behind it)
	* Offers a wide range of features, including timezone support
	* Well-documented and easy to learn
4. **Native JavaScript `Date` object**: Pros:
	* Fast and efficient (fastest execution per second in this benchmark)
	* Lightweight and easy to use
	* Built-in to all JavaScript environments

Cons:

1. **Luxon**: May require more learning and adaptation due to its modern design.
2. **Datefns**: Limited features compared to Luxon and Moment.js.
3. **Moment.js**: Can be heavier than Luxon or Datefns due to its extensive feature set.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition, but it's worth noting that each library may use specific JavaScript features or syntax (e.g., async/await, Promises) that may affect performance.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **JSTimeZone**: Another modern JavaScript library for working with dates and times.
2. **Day.js**: A lightweight JavaScript library for date manipulation and formatting.
3. **DayPilot**: A JavaScript library for creating dynamic calendars and scheduling applications.

Keep in mind that the choice of library ultimately depends on your specific use case, personal preferences, and project requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
datefns	882622.2 Ops/sec
luxon	545709.3 Ops/sec
moment	223870.0 Ops/sec
Date	3912489.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

luxon vs datefns vs moment vs Date (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: datefns vs luxon vs moment vs Date

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

datefns

luxon

moment

Date

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):