Benchmark: moment.valueOf vs Date.valueOf

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/moment/moment/2.24.0/moment.js"></script>

Tests:

new Date.valueOf()
new Date().valueOf()
moment.valueOf()
moment().valueOf()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date.valueOf()
moment.valueOf()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of MeasureThat.net and the Benchmark**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, allowing them to compare the performance of different approaches in various scenarios.

The provided benchmark definition json defines two individual test cases:

1. `new Date().valueOf()`: This test case measures the performance of calling the `valueOf()` method on a new instance of the `Date` object.
2. `moment().valueOf()`: This test case measures the performance of calling the `.valueOf()` method on a new instance of the Moment.js library's `moment()` function.

**Library: Moment.js**

Moment.js is a popular JavaScript date and time manipulation library. It provides various methods to work with dates, including formatting, parsing, and manipulating specific fields. In this benchmark, Moment.js is used to create a moment object (`moment()`) that can be called with the `valueOf()` method.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare two different approaches:

1. **Native JavaScript Date**: The first test case uses the native JavaScript `Date` object to generate a new date instance and measure its performance when calling the `valueOf()` method.
2. **Moment.js**: The second test case uses Moment.js to create a moment object (`moment()`) that is then called with the `valueOf()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript Date**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast execution time, as it doesn't rely on an external library.
		+ Simple implementation.
	* Cons:
		+ Might be slower than Moment.js for specific date-related operations due to the overhead of creating a new `Date` object and parsing the timestamp.
2. **Moment.js**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized performance for date-related operations, as it's designed specifically for this purpose.
		+ Provides additional features beyond basic date manipulation (e.g., formatting, timezone support).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external library, which can add overhead and complexity to the codebase.
		+ Might be slower than native JavaScript Date for very simple use cases due to the initialization cost of creating a moment object.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two approaches: using native JavaScript `Date` vs Moment.js.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Moment.js, consider:

1. **Date-fns**: A modern, high-performance date manipulation library that provides a more concise API and better performance than Moment.js.
2. **Luxon**: A robust, feature-rich date and time library that offers a more flexible API than Moment.js and is designed for optimal performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different trade-offs in terms of complexity, features, and performance compared to Moment.js.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new Date.valueOf()	4699161.5 Ops/sec
moment.valueOf()	2002775.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

moment.valueOf vs Date.valueOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date.valueOf() vs moment.valueOf()

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

new Date.valueOf()

moment.valueOf()

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):