Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 11

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/showdown@1.9.1/dist/showdown.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/marked@1.1.0/marked.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/commonmark@0.29.1/dist/commonmark.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/markdown-it@11.0.0/dist/markdown-it.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/remarkable@2.0.1/dist/remarkable.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/micromarkdown@0.3.0/dist/micromarkdown.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/snarkdown@1.2.2/dist/snarkdown.umd.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://lukeuser.cacus.feralhosting.com/remarked.js.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var conv = {
  showdown: new showdown.Converter(),
  marked: marked,
  cm: new commonmark.HtmlRenderer(),
  mdit: markdownit({ html: true }),
  remarkable: new remarkable.Remarkable(),
  micromarkdown: window.micromarkdown,
  snarkdown: window.snarkdown,
  remarker: new reMarked()
};

var pars = {
  cm: new commonmark.Parser()
};

var md = "# The Static, Static Blog Generator\n\n### May 17th, 2014\n\nWe all like publishing our thoughts online - but why is it such a bother to run a CMS?\n\nManaging databases, `updating` software, and keeping track of our *content* often cuts into the most important activity: *expressing ourselves*.\n\nThe web makes it really __easy to share__ our thoughts with millions of __individuals__ from around the world.";

Tests:

Showdown.js
conv.showdown.makeHtml(md);
Marked
conv.marked(md);
CommonMark
conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md));
Markdown-it
conv.mdit.render(md);
Remarkable
conv.remarkable.render(md);
Micromarkdown
conv.micromarkdown.parse(md);
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md);
reMarked.js
conv.remarker.render(md);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Showdown.js
Marked
CommonMark
Markdown-it
Remarkable
Micromarkdown
Snarkdown
reMarked.js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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 this benchmark.

**Overview**
The benchmark compares the performance of eight different Markdown parsers: Showdown.js, Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, Snarkdown, and reMarked.js. The test case uses a fixed input markdown string, which is converted to HTML using each parser's API.

**Parsers Compared**

1. **Showdown.js**: A JavaScript implementation of Markdown syntax highlighting and conversion.
2. **Marked**: A lightweight JavaScript library for converting Markdown to HTML.
3. **CommonMark**: A specification-driven implementation of Markdown parsing, designed to be fast and efficient.
4. **Markdown-it**: A modular and customizable Markdown parser with a wide range of features.
5. **Remarkable**: A high-performance Markdown parser optimized for speed and efficiency.
6. **Micromarkdown**: A lightweight and fast Markdown parser built on top of the Micromark library.
7. **Snarkdown**: A simple and easy-to-use Markdown parser with a focus on readability.
8. **reMarked.js**: A JavaScript implementation of the reMarked Markdown specification.

**Options Compared**

Each test case compares the performance of one specific parser against another, or against an empty string (which serves as a baseline). The options compared are:

* Showdown.js vs. Marked
* CommonMark vs. Markdown-it
* Remarkable vs. Micromarkdown
* Snarkdown vs. reMarked.js

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Showdown.js**: Pros: Easy to use, well-documented; Cons: Not as fast as some other parsers.
2. **Marked**: Pros: Lightweight, easy to use; Cons: Limited customization options.
3. **CommonMark**: Pros: Fast, efficient; Cons: Steeper learning curve due to specification-driven approach.
4. **Markdown-it**: Pros: Highly customizable, modular design; Cons: Can be slower than some other parsers.
5. **Remarkable**: Pros: High-performance, optimized for speed; Cons: May require more setup and configuration.
6. **Micromarkdown**: Pros: Extremely lightweight, fast; Cons: Limited features and customization options.
7. **Snarkdown**: Pros: Easy to use, readable code; Cons: Not as fast or feature-rich as other parsers.
8. **reMarked.js**: Pros: Fast, efficient, and well-documented; Cons: May require more setup and configuration than some other parsers.

**Conclusion**
The benchmark provides a comprehensive comparison of eight Markdown parsers, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. While each parser has its unique features and trade-offs, Remarkable and Micromarkdown emerge as top performers in terms of speed and efficiency. CommonMark and reMarked.js offer a good balance between performance and ease of use. Ultimately, the choice of parser depends on your specific requirements and preferences.

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 11 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

Comparing performance of: Showdown.js vs Marked vs CommonMark vs Markdown-it vs Remarkable vs Micromarkdown vs Snarkdown vs reMarked.js

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Showdown.js

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

reMarked.js

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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