Benchmark: moment vs date-fns

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.29.1/moment.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/date-fns/1.30.1/date_fns.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.__date__ = new Date();
window.__expected__ = '2000/01/06';

Tests:

moment
var actual = moment(__date__).format('YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);
date-fns
var actual = dateFns.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD'); console.assert(actual === __expected__);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 15 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 15 runs

moment

251K/s

date-fns

200K/s

Fastest: moment (1.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ moment: 250,810 ops/sec
• date-fns: 199,599 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
moment
date-fns

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

moment

135K/s

date-fns

126K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ moment	135,396 Ops/sec
date-fns	125,664 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test for two JavaScript libraries: Moment.js and Date-FNS. The test measures the performance of each library in formatting dates.

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, only two options are being compared:

1. **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript date manipulation library.
2. **Date-FNS**: A modern and efficient alternative to traditional date libraries like Moment.js.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Moment.js**:
	+ Pros: Mature and widely used, with a large community and extensive documentation. Offers various formatting options and is compatible with many browsers.
	+ Cons: Can be slow for complex date calculations and has some security concerns (e.g., vulnerability to zero-day attacks).
* **Date-FNS**:
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, with native support for modern JavaScript features like arrow functions and async/await. Offers a simple and intuitive API.
	+ Cons: Smaller community compared to Moment.js, which might impact documentation quality and support. Some users may find the API less familiar or less flexible.

**Other considerations**

* **Browser differences**: The benchmark is run on Mobile Safari 17, an iOS device. This means that any differences in performance between Moment.js and Date-FNS are likely due to browser-specific optimizations or differences.
* **Library versions**: The test uses fixed versions of each library (Moment.js v2.29.1 and Date-FNS v1.30.1). Using different versions could affect the results, as new features and bug fixes might impact performance.

**Special JS feature**

The benchmark uses a special JavaScript feature: **arrow functions**. Both libraries use arrow functions to define functions, which is a modern JavaScript syntax that provides better scoping and readability. This feature is not specific to either library, but its presence does affect the overall code style and maintainability.

**Library usage**

In the test case for Moment.js, `moment(__date__)` is used to create a new moment object from the defined date (`__date__`). The `format('YYYY/MM/DD')` method is then called on this object to format the date. In contrast, Date-FNS uses `dateFns.format(__date__, 'YYYY/MM/DD')`, which is a similar but distinct syntax.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided HTML code includes two script tags that load the Moment.js and Date-FNS libraries. The `window.__date__` variable is defined using the `new Date()` constructor, while `window.__expected__` contains the expected date string (`'2000/01/06'`). This allows the benchmark to assert that the actual output matches the expected result.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for comparing libraries like Moment.js and Date-FNS could include:

* **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Jest, Mocha, or Benchmark.js can help with setup, execution, and analysis of benchmarks.
* **Virtual machines**: Creating virtual machines (e.g., using V8) to run the benchmark in a controlled environment might reduce variability due to browser differences.
* **Multi-browser testing**: Running the benchmark on multiple browsers (e.g., Chrome, Firefox, Edge) could provide more comprehensive results.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach has its own trade-offs and considerations.

moment vs date-fns (version: 0)

It's not a deep validation; I'm just comparing ONE function that those two libraries have in common.

Comparing performance of: `moment vs date-fns`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

moment

date-fns

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 15 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 15 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

moment vs date-fns (version: 0)

It's not a deep validation; I'm just comparing ONE function that those two libraries have in common.

Comparing performance of: moment vs date-fns

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

moment

date-fns

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 15 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 15 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `moment vs date-fns`