Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 13

HTML Preparation code:

<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 Preparation code:

var conv = {
  marked: marked,
  cm: new commonmark.HtmlRenderer(),
  mdit: markdownit({ html: true }),
  remarkable: new remarkable.Remarkable(),
  micromarkdown: window.micromarkdown,
  snarkdown: window.snarkdown,
};

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:

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);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Marked
CommonMark
Markdown-it
Remarkable
Micromarkdown
Snarkdown

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 19 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	32128.9 Ops/sec
CommonMark	63847.2 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	65909.3 Ops/sec
Remarkable	85120.1 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	106384.6 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	68282.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested, the options being compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark measures the performance of different JavaScript Markdown implementations (Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, and Snarkdown) in rendering a given Markdown text (`md`).

**Options Being Compared:**

1. **Marked**: A lightweight, header-only implementation of Markdown parsing.
2. **CommonMark**: An open-source implementation of Markdown parsing that aims to be more accurate than other Markdown parsers.
3. **Markdown-it**: A popular JavaScript library for parsing and rendering Markdown text.
4. **Remarkable**: A modern, feature-rich Markdown parser with a focus on performance and ease of use.
5. **Micromarkdown**: A small, header-only library for parsing Markdown text.
6. **Snarkdown**: A JavaScript library for parsing and rendering Markdown text.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Marked**: Lightweight, easy to use, but may sacrifice accuracy or features compared to other implementations. Pros: Small size, fast execution times.
* **CommonMark**: More accurate and feature-rich than Marked, but larger in size. Cons: May be slower due to its complexity.
* **Markdown-it**: Popular and widely used, with a large community of contributors. Pros: Feature-rich, well-maintained, and fast execution times. Cons: Larger size compared to Micromarkdown.
* **Remarkable**: Modern implementation with a focus on performance and ease of use. Pros: Fast execution times, modern features like syntax highlighting. Cons: May be more complex than other implementations.
* **Micromarkdown**: Small, lightweight, and easy to use, but may sacrifice accuracy or features compared to other implementations. Pros: Fast execution times, small size.
* **Snarkdown**: Feature-rich and well-maintained, with a focus on performance. Cons: Larger size compared to Micromarkdown.

**Library-Specific Notes:**

* **CommonMark**: The CommonMark specification is an open-standard for Markdown parsing. This implementation adheres to the specification, ensuring accurate rendering of Markdown text.
* **Markdown-it**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of features and plugins. Its performance and accuracy are among the best in this benchmark.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, some libraries (like Remarkable) may utilize modern JavaScript features like ES6 syntax or async/await for better performance.

**Other Alternatives:**
There are other Markdown parsers available, such as:

* **Showcase**: A fast and lightweight Markdown parser with a focus on performance.
* **js-markdown**: A simple and easy-to-use Markdown parser that is well-suited for small projects.
* **markdown-it-extensions**: An extension of the popular Markdown-it library, providing additional features like syntax highlighting.

Keep in mind that each implementation has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on specific project requirements and constraints.

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 13 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

Comparing performance of: Marked vs CommonMark vs Markdown-it vs Remarkable vs Micromarkdown vs Snarkdown

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):