Benchmark: Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat vs Regex

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = new Intl.NumberFormat(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', }).format(currencyPlayNumber);
Number.toLocaleString
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = currencyPlayNumber.toLocaleString(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', })
Regex
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = `${currencyPlayNumber}`.replace(/\B(?=(\d{3})+(?!\d))/g, ',');

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 53 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 47 runs

Regex

28.4M/s

Number.toLocaleString

56K/s

Intl.NumberFormat

53K/s

Fastest: Regex (532.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Regex: 28,364,654 ops/sec
• Number.toLocaleString: 56,321 ops/sec
• Intl.NumberFormat: 53,305 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

Regex

22.6M/s

Number.toLocaleString

45K/s

Intl.NumberFormat

45K/s

Fastest: Regex (504.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Regex: 22,567,916 ops/sec
• Number.toLocaleString: 45,143 ops/sec
• Intl.NumberFormat: 44,697 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
Intl.NumberFormat
Number.toLocaleString
Regex

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/145.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Regex

5.8M/s

Number.toLocaleString

15K/s

Intl.NumberFormat

12K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Regex	5,762,924 Ops/sec
Number.toLocaleString	15,220 Ops/sec
Intl.NumberFormat	11,946 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to format a currency string: `Intl.NumberFormat`, `Number.toLocaleString`, and regular expression (Regex). The goal is to determine which approach is the most efficient.

**Options Compared**

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This method uses the Internationalization API to format numbers according to a specific locale, in this case, Russian (RUB).
2. **Number.toLocaleString**: This method uses the `toLocaleString` method of the JavaScript number object to format numbers according to a specific locale.
3. **Regex**: This method uses regular expressions to manually replace digits with commas, creating a currency string.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Intl.NumberFormat**:
	+ Pros: widely supported by modern browsers, flexible locale options, handles formatting for multiple currencies and number formats.
	+ Cons: may have performance overhead due to internationalization considerations.
* **Number.toLocaleString**:
	+ Pros: widely supported by modern browsers, efficient performance, simple implementation.
	+ Cons: limited locale options compared to `Intl.NumberFormat`.
* **Regex**:
	+ Pros: lightweight and flexible, can handle formatting for multiple currencies and number formats.
	+ Cons: requires manual implementation, potential performance overhead due to string manipulation.

**Library/Technique Used**

None of the above methods rely on external libraries. However, the use of internationalization APIs (`Intl.NumberFormat`) may be considered a technique or library in itself, as it provides a standardized way to handle formatting for different locales and currencies.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these benchmarks.

**Other Alternatives**

If none of the above methods are suitable, alternative approaches could include:

1. Using a dedicated JavaScript library for internationalization, such as Moment.js.
2. Implementing custom formatting logic using a template engine like Handlebars.
3. Using a CSS-based approach to format numbers, such as by manipulating the HTML element's style attribute.

These alternatives may offer better performance or flexibility but also introduce additional complexity and overhead.

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat vs Regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString vs Regex`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

Regex

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 53 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 47 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat vs Regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString vs Regex

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

Regex

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 53 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 47 runs

Firefox 6 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: `Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString vs Regex`