Benchmark: jQuery AJAX vs Fetch API

jQuery AJAX vs Fetch API (version: 0)

Benchmark jQuery AJAX wrapper vs Fetch API that shows the power of Vanilla JS Checked test: jQuery x 20,305 ops/sec ±5.52% (61 runs sampled) => 50ms execution time Checked test: Vanilla JS x 26,853 ops/sec ±6.86% (56 runs sampled) => 38ms execution time

Comparing performance of: jQuery test case vs Vanilla JS test case

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.min.js'></script>

Tests:

jQuery test case
$.ajax({ type: 'POST', url: "http://vanilla-js.com/path/to/api", data: {'banana': 'yellow'}, success: (data) = {}, });
Vanilla JS test case
const sendAjax = (url, data, callback) => { fetch(url, { method: 'POST', body: new URLSearchParams(data), }).then((response) => { const contentType = response.headers.get("content-type"); if (contentType && contentType.indexOf("application/json") !== -1) { return response.json().then(data => {callback(data)}); } else { return response.text().then(text => {callback(text)}); } }); } sendAjax('http://vanilla-js.com/path/to/api', {'banana': 'yellow'}, (data) => {});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery test case
Vanilla JS test case

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:149.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/149.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 149 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery test case	3213.9 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS test case	5647.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what is being tested and compared.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares the performance of jQuery AJAX wrapper with Fetch API, which is a vanilla JavaScript API for making HTTP requests. The goal is to determine which approach is more efficient in terms of execution time and operations per second (ops/sec).

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **jQuery AJAX Wrapper**: This is a modified version of the jQuery library that provides an AJAX wrapper around Fetch API.
2. **Fetch API**: This is a vanilla JavaScript API for making HTTP requests.

**Pros and Cons**

* **jQuery AJAX Wrapper**:
	+ Pros: Easy to use, well-maintained, and widely adopted.
	+ Cons: Adds extra overhead due to the wrapper layer, which can lead to slower performance compared to using Fetch API directly.
* **Fetch API**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, flexible, and allows for more control over the request process.
	+ Cons: Requires manual handling of details like headers, query parameters, and error handling.

**Library and Purpose**

In the provided test cases:

* **jQuery**: A JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX requests. In this benchmark, it's used as a wrapper around Fetch API to provide an easier-to-use interface.
* **Fetch API**: A vanilla JavaScript API for making HTTP requests. It's used directly in the Vanilla JS test case to compare its performance with jQuery's wrapper.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested or compared in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches for making AJAX requests: using a library (jQuery) versus using a vanilla JavaScript API (Fetch).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

* **Axios**: A popular JavaScript library for making HTTP requests that provides a simpler and more expressive API than Fetch API.
* **XMLHttpRequest**: An older JavaScript API for making HTTP requests that's still supported in modern browsers but has been largely superseded by Fetch API and Axios.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or API depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks: