Benchmark: hash-wasm vs Web Crypto API

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/hash-wasm@4"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Uint32Array(1024);
window.crypto.getRandomValues(data);
var dataBuffer = new Uint8Array(data);
data = String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer);

Tests:

wasm sha256
console.log(hashwasm.sha256(data));
webcrypto sha256
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-256", dataBuffer).then(function (hash) {console.log(hash);});
wasm sha1
console.log(hashwasm.sha1(data));
webcrypto sha1
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-1", dataBuffer).then(function (hash) {console.log(hash);});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
wasm sha256
webcrypto sha256
wasm sha1
webcrypto sha1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 21 hours ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON aims to compare the performance of hashing algorithms implemented via two different approaches: **Hash-WASM** and the **Web Crypto API**. Specifically, it focuses on hashing functions for SHA-1 and SHA-256, evaluating each method’s efficiency through microbenchmarks.

### Overview of Compared Options

1. **Hash-WASM**: This is a JavaScript library that uses WebAssembly (WASM) to perform cryptographic hashing operations. In this benchmark, two specific hashes are tested:
   - **wasm sha256**: The implementation of SHA-256 using Hash-WASM.
   - **wasm sha1**: The implementation of SHA-1 using Hash-WASM.

2. **Web Crypto API**: This is a built-in web API provided by modern browsers that offers a set of cryptographic functions, including hashing. The benchmark tests:
   - **webcrypto sha256**: The implementation of SHA-256 via the Web Crypto API.
   - **webcrypto sha1**: The implementation of SHA-1 via the Web Crypto API.

### Performance Results

The benchmark results reveal that the Web Crypto API outperforms Hash-WASM in both SHA-1 and SHA-256 hashing methods:

- **Executions per Second**:
  - **webcrypto sha1**: 220,899.515625
  - **webcrypto sha256**: 195,334.625
  - **wasm sha256**: 91,459.5390625
  - **wasm sha1**: 89,124.65625

From the results, it's evident that both SHA-1 and SHA-256 implementations via the Web Crypto API are significantly faster than their counterparts using Hash-WASM.

### Pros and Cons

#### Hash-WASM
- **Pros**:
  - May be beneficial for environments where Web Crypto API is not available.
  - Enables better control over the wasm code and can be optimized for specific scenarios.
  
- **Cons**:
  - Generally slower than the native Web Crypto API implementations as shown by the benchmark results.
  - Requires loading additional resources (the wasm module), which might introduce overhead in certain contexts.

#### Web Crypto API
- **Pros**:
  - Offers better performance, as seen in the benchmarks.
  - Built-in support in browsers, ensuring optimal implementation by leveraging native capabilities and optimizations.
  - Provides a wider range of cryptographic functions beyond hashing.
  
- **Cons**:
  - Can be less flexible than a self-implemented hashing solution, especially if specific algorithm tweaks are required.
  - May not be available in legacy browsers or certain environments without full support for the Web Crypto API.

### Alternative Approaches

Apart from the two approaches evaluated in this benchmark, there are other alternatives that developers might consider:

1. **JavaScript Libraries**: There are many JS libraries (e.g., CryptoJS, Forge) that implement cryptographic functions. These can be beneficial if ease of use or features not covered by the Web Crypto API is required. However, they often cannot match the performance of Web Crypto API.

2. **Server-side hashing**: When it comes to secure applications, hashing can also be performed on the server side (e.g., using Node.js crypto module) and sending results to the client, which might be beneficial in certain architectures.

3. **Custom Implementations**: For niche applications where a specific optimization of the hashing algorithm is needed, developers can write their custom versions. However, performance will require thorough testing against established libraries to be considered usable.

Our benchmark primarily illustrates the comparison of hashing algorithms using two common yet distinct techniques: a library utilizing WASM and the built-in capabilities within modern web browsers through the Web Crypto API. The results underline the significant performance advantages offered by the latter, making it the recommended choice for web applications requiring hashing operations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: yesterday)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
wasm sha256	91459.5 Ops/sec
webcrypto sha256	195334.6 Ops/sec
wasm sha1	89124.7 Ops/sec
webcrypto sha1	220899.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

hash-wasm vs Web Crypto API (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: wasm sha256 vs webcrypto sha256 vs wasm sha1 vs webcrypto sha1

Created: yesterday by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

wasm sha256

webcrypto sha256

wasm sha1

webcrypto sha1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 21 hours ago):