Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
var a = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US").format("10000");
toLocalString
var a = "10000".toLocaleString("en-US");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
toLocalString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	40738.0 Ops/sec
toLocalString	19793742.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test case that compares two approaches for formatting numbers: `Intl.NumberFormat` and the `toLocaleString` method. The test aims to measure which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This is an internationalization API provided by the JavaScript Standard Library. It allows you to format numbers according to a specific locale.
2. **toLocalString**: This method is part of the `toLocaleString` interface, which returns a string representation of a number in the specified locale.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and powerful for formatting numbers according to specific locales.
		+ Can handle complex number formats with options like grouping, currency symbols, and more.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower than `toLocaleString` due to its more complex implementation.
		+ Requires importing the internationalization API (Intl) module.
2. **toLocalString**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster and more lightweight compared to Intl.NumberFormat.
		+ Easy to use and requires no additional imports.
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible than Intl.NumberFormat, as it only provides basic formatting options.

**Library usage**

In the provided test case, the `Intl` library is used for the Intl.NumberFormat approach. The `Intl` library provides a set of APIs for internationalization and localization, allowing developers to work with different languages, scripts, and number formats in their applications.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmarking test case. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Intl` library and its methods can be considered a modern JavaScript feature.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to formatting numbers in JavaScript, here are a few options:

1. **Number.prototype.toLocaleString()**: This method is part of the W3C specification and provides a standardized way to format numbers according to a specific locale.
2. **Custom string manipulation**: You can implement your own number formatting logic using string concatenation or template literals.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer the same level of flexibility or performance as Intl.NumberFormat, but they can be useful for simple use cases or when working with legacy browsers that don't support the Intl library.

Related benchmarks:

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

toLocalString

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):