Benchmark: Intl.Collator.compare('en', {numeric: true}) vs localeCompare('en', {numeric: true})

Script Preparation code:

var a = "FOO BAR";
var b = "foo bar";

var options = {
  numeric: true
};

var collator = new Intl.Collator('en', options);

Tests:

localeCompare()
a.localeCompare(b, 'en', options) === 0
Intl.Collator.compare()
collator.compare(a, b) === 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
localeCompare()
Intl.Collator.compare()

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 provided JSON benchmark and explain what is tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches for comparing strings in different locales:

1. `localeCompare()` from the JavaScript String prototype
2. `Intl.Collator.compare()` from the Internationalization API

Both methods are called with the same arguments: a string `a`, another string `b` encoded in English (`"en"`), and an options object with `numeric: true`.

**Options Comparison**

The two options being compared are:

1. `localeCompare()`: This method is part of the JavaScript String prototype, which provides a simple way to compare strings based on their locale-specific sorting rules.
2. `Intl.Collator.compare()`: This method is from the Internationalization API, specifically designed for comparing strings in different locales.

**Pros and Cons**

**localeCompare():**

Pros:

* Easy to use and implement
* Fast performance
* No additional dependencies required

Cons:

* May not work correctly for all locale-specific sorting rules
* Does not support custom comparators or options

**Intl.Collator.compare():**

Pros:

* Supports locale-specific sorting rules and can handle complex comparisons
* Can be customized with options, such as `numeric` and `caseFirst`

Cons:

* Requires an additional dependency (the Internationalization API)
* May have slower performance compared to `localeCompare()`
* More complex usage

**Library/Functionality**

Both methods are built-in JavaScript functions, but `Intl.Collator.compare()` also depends on the Internationalization API.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The test does not mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. Both methods use a standard way of calling strings with locale-specific arguments.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for comparing strings in different locales include:

* Using regular expressions with locale-specific flags (e.g., `en` flag for English language)
* Implementing custom comparators using the `String.prototype.localeCompare()` method and a custom sorting function
* Using third-party libraries or modules that provide more advanced comparison functionality, such as `lodash.string` or `moment.js`

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, dependencies, and complexity compared to the tested methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
localeCompare()	194871.1 Ops/sec
Intl.Collator.compare()	3095872.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Intl.Collator.compare('en', {numeric: true}) vs localeCompare('en', {numeric: true}) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: localeCompare() vs Intl.Collator.compare()

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

localeCompare()

Intl.Collator.compare()

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):