Benchmark: Sha256 - 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-256", dataBuffer).then(function (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: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cryptico	2278.5 Ops/sec
Crypto.js	16832.5 Ops/sec
sjcl	15674.6 Ops/sec
window.crypto	166941.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of different JavaScript libraries for generating SHA-256 hashes from a given input data. The test cases use various libraries, including Cryptico, Crypto.js, sjcl (Secure JavaScript), and the `window.crypto` API, which provides a built-in way to perform cryptographic operations in web browsers.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **Cryptico**: A lightweight JavaScript library for generating hashes and other cryptographic functions.
2. **Crypto.js**: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography, including hash generation (SHA-256).
3. **sjcl (Secure JavaScript)**: A comprehensive JavaScript library for secure coding practices, including hash generation (SHA-256).
4. **window.crypto**: The Web Cryptography API, which provides a built-in way to perform cryptographic operations in web browsers.

**Test Options**

The benchmark tests the following options:

1. **Cryptico**: Uses the `SHASH` function from the Cryptico library to generate a SHA-256 hash.
2. **Crypto.js**: Uses the `SHA256` function from the Crypto.js library to generate a SHA-256 hash.
3. **sjcl**: Uses the `hash.sha256.hash()` method from the sjcl library to generate a SHA-256 hash.
4. **window.crypto**: Uses the `digest()` method with the `"SHA-256"` algorithm to generate a SHA-256 hash.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Cryptico**, **Crypto.js**, and **sjcl**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, and optimized for performance.
	* Cons: May not be as secure as other libraries or built-in APIs.
2. **window.crypto**:
	* Pros: Built-in API, provides a high level of security and standardization.
	* Cons: Requires a compatible browser, may have performance overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing a library for hash generation, consider the following:

1. **Security**: Ensure that the library is secure and up-to-date to avoid vulnerabilities.
2. **Performance**: Choose a lightweight library or built-in API to minimize execution time.
3. **Compatibility**: Select a library compatible with your target browsers or environments.

**Alternatives**

If you're not using one of the libraries mentioned above, some other alternatives include:

1. **Web Cryptography API (W3C)**: A standardized API for cryptographic operations in web browsers.
2. **Bcrypt.js**: A JavaScript library for password hashing and verification.
3. **crypto-sandbox**: A sandboxed environment for testing and demonstrating cryptographic algorithms.

In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of different libraries for generating SHA-256 hashes from input data, highlighting their pros and cons, security considerations, compatibility requirements, and alternative options.

Related benchmarks:

Sha256 (version: 0)

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

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cryptico

Crypto.js

sjcl

window.crypto

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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