Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 21

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 = "# Short test\n\nthis is a *short* test, a short test to check how this thing does with a pretty _short_ piece of text.";

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: 3 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	157519.1 Ops/sec
CommonMark	263953.8 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	287984.1 Ops/sec
Remarkable	328156.4 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	352766.7 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	365364.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided JSON benchmark data.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of six popular JavaScript Markdown implementations: Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, and Snarkdown. The benchmark uses a fixed test case (`md`) that contains a short paragraph with multiple formatting elements (bold, italic, etc.).

**Options Compared**

Each test case compares the performance of one Markdown implementation versus another. The options compared are:

1. Marked vs. CommonMark
2. Marked vs. Markdown-it
3. Marked vs. Remarkable
4. Marked vs. Micromarkdown
5. Marked vs. Snarkdown
6. CommonMark vs. Markdown-it
7. CommonMark vs. Remarkable
8. CommonMark vs. Micromarkdown
9. CommonMark vs. Snarkdown
10. Markdown-it vs. Remarkable
11. Markdown-it vs. Micromarkdown
12. Markdown-it vs. Snarkdown
13. Remarkable vs. Micromarkdown
14. Remarkable vs. Snarkdown
15. Micromarkdown vs. Snarkdown

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief overview of each implementation:

1. **Marked**: Fast and lightweight, but has limited features.
	* Pros: Small size, fast rendering.
	* Cons: Limited formatting options.
2. **CommonMark**: More feature-rich than Marked, but slower.
	* Pros: Wide range of formatting options, more compatible with CommonMark parsers.
	* Cons: Larger size, slower rendering.
3. **Markdown-it**: Fast and flexible, with a large community and many plugins.
	* Pros: Highly customizable, fast rendering.
	* Cons: Large size, can be overwhelming for beginners.
4. **Remarkable**: Similar to Markdown-it, but with a stronger focus on readability.
	* Pros: Beautiful typography, fast rendering.
	* Cons: Smaller community compared to Markdown-it.
5. **Micromarkdown**: Fast and lightweight, with a focus on simplicity.
	* Pros: Small size, easy to use.
	* Cons: Limited features, not as compatible with other parsers.
6. **Snarkdown**: Fast and feature-rich, with a strong focus on web compatibility.
	* Pros: Wide range of formatting options, fast rendering.
	* Cons: Smaller community compared to Marked.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses several libraries:

1. **marked**: A popular Markdown parser.
2. **commonmark**: A widely-used CommonMark parser.
3. **markdown-it**: A flexible and customizable Markdown parser.
4. **remarkable**: A beautiful and readable Markdown implementation.
5. **micromarkdown**: A lightweight and simple Markdown parser.
6. **snarkdown**: A fast and feature-rich Markdown parser.

**Special JavaScript Features**

None of the implementations use special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some Markdown parsers may rely on specific browser features, such as CSS gradients or animations.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative Markdown implementations, some popular options include:

1. **Showdown**: A fast and lightweight Markdown parser.
2. **Katex**: A mathematical notation renderer based on MathJax.
3. **Prince**: A commercial-grade Markdown implementation with a strong focus on print formatting.

Keep in mind that each implementation has its strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice for your project will depend on your specific needs and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 21 (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: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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