Benchmark: Sha512 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/sjcl/1.0.6/sjcl.min.js"></script>
<script 
src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/cryptico/0.0.1343522940/cryptico.min.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/3.1.9-1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Uint32Array(1024);
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(data);
  var dataBuffer = new Uint8Array(data);
  data = String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer);
  
  
  // src: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypto/digest
  function hex(buffer) {
    var hexCodes = [];
    var view = new DataView(buffer);
    for (var i = 0; i < view.byteLength; i += 4) {
      // Using getUint32 reduces the number of iterations needed (we process 4 bytes each time)
      var value = view.getUint32(i)
      // toString(16) will give the hex representation of the number without padding
      var stringValue = value.toString(16)
      // We use concatenation and slice for padding
      var padding = '00000000'
      var paddedValue = (padding + stringValue).slice(-padding.length)
      hexCodes.push(paddedValue);
    }
  
    // Join all the hex strings into one
    return hexCodes.join("");
  }

Tests:

Cryptico
SHA256(data);
Crypto.js
CryptoJS.SHA256(data);
sjcl
sjcl.hash.sha256.hash(data);
window.crypto
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cryptico
Crypto.js
sjcl
window.crypto

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/118.0.5993.771 YaBrowser/23.11.2.771 Yowser/2.5 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Yandex Browser 23 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cryptico	17647.6 Ops/sec
Crypto.js	30503.4 Ops/sec
sjcl	31041.2 Ops/sec
window.crypto	528519.9 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 provided benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the script to be executed. In this case, there are four different scripts:

1. **SubtleCrypto**: This option uses the Web API's `SubtleCrypto` interface to compute the SHA-512 hash of the input data.
2. **Sjcl**: This option uses the SJCL (Secure JavaScript Library) library to compute the SHA-256 hash of the input data, which is then converted to SHA-512 using a custom function (`hex()`).
3. **Crypto.js**: This option uses the Crypto-JS library to compute the SHA-256 hash of the input data, which is then converted to SHA-512 using a custom function (`hex()`).
4. **Cryptico**: This option uses a custom implementation to compute the SHA-256 hash of the input data, which is then converted to SHA-512 using a custom function (`hex()`).

**Comparison**

The comparison between these options is based on their performance, specifically the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond). The script with the highest value in this metric is considered the fastest.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each option:

1. **SubtleCrypto**:
	* Pros: Native Web API, efficient implementation, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: Requires support for Web Cryptography API, which might not be available on all browsers or systems.
2. **Sjcl**:
	* Pros: Secure, well-tested, and widely adopted library.
	* Cons: Additional dependency required (SJCL), and the custom `hex()` function can introduce overhead.
3. **Crypto.js**:
	* Pros: Well-maintained, efficient implementation, and widely used.
	* Cons: Additional dependency required (Crypto-JS), and the custom `hex()` function can introduce overhead.
4. **Cryptico**:
	* Pros: Custom implementation, potentially optimized for performance.
	* Cons: No clear support from maintainers or community, and might not be as efficient as established libraries.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an option, consider factors such as:

* Browser support: Some options (e.g., SubtleCrypto) require specific browser support, while others (e.g., Sjcl, Crypto.js) are more widely supported.
* Security: Sjcl and Crypto.js are well-established libraries with good security track records, while Cryptico's custom implementation might introduce security risks if not properly validated.
* Performance: The comparison results will indicate which option performs best in terms of executions per second.

**Alternatives**

For SHA-512 hashing, other alternatives to the options listed above include:

1. **Web Crypto API with SHA-512**: This option uses the Web Crypto API's `digest` method to compute the SHA-512 hash directly.
2. **Bcrypt**: A widely used library for password hashing and verification that can be adapted for general-purpose hashing tasks, including SHA-512.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its pros and cons, and the best choice depends on specific requirements, such as performance, security, or ease of use.

Related benchmarks:

Sha512 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cryptico vs Crypto.js vs sjcl vs window.crypto

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cryptico

Crypto.js

sjcl

window.crypto

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):