Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 29

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()
};

function randword() {return Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15)+" "}

function md() { return [randword(),randword()+randword(),"## "+randword(),"","","1. "+randword(),"2. "+randword(),"","","---","","***"+randword()+"***","",
                       randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),"",randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),randword(),
                       randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),"",randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),randword(),
                       randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),"",randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),randword()].join("\n");}

var [md1, md2, md3, md4, md5, md6] = [md(), md(), md(), md(), md(), md()]

Tests:

Marked
conv.marked(md1);
CommonMark
conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md2));
Markdown-it
conv.mdit.render(md3);
Remarkable
conv.remarkable.render(md4);
Micromarkdown
conv.micromarkdown.parse(md5);
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md6);

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: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 16 on iOS 16.1.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	3977.2 Ops/sec
CommonMark	12515.1 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	24867.1 Ops/sec
Remarkable	35783.0 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	21600.7 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	1934.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition, explaining what's being tested and compared.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares six different JavaScript Markdown implementations: Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, and Snarkdown.

**What's Being Tested?**

Each individual test case measures the performance of a specific Markdown implementation when processing a generated Markdown string (`md1` to `md6`). The Markdown strings are created using a custom function `md()`, which generates random text with various Markdown formatting (headers, bold, italic, etc.).

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Marked**: Uses Marked's rendering engine to convert the Markdown string to HTML.
2. **CommonMark**: Uses CommonMark's parsing and rendering engines to convert the Markdown string to HTML.
3. **Markdown-it**: Uses Markdown-it's rendering engine to convert the Markdown string to HTML.
4. **Remarkable**: Uses Remarkable's rendering engine to convert the Markdown string to HTML.
5. **Micromarkdown**: Uses Micromarkdown's parsing and rendering engines to convert the Markdown string to HTML.
6. **Snarkdown**: Uses Snarkdown's rendering engine to convert the Markdown string to HTML.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Marked**: Pros: simple, lightweight, fast rendering. Cons: might not handle complex Markdown syntax well.
2. **CommonMark**: Pros: more comprehensive parsing and rendering, better handling of complex syntax. Cons: heavier, slower rendering.
3. **Markdown-it**: Pros: flexible, customizable rendering. Cons: might require more setup and configuration.
4. **Remarkable**: Pros: fast, efficient rendering, good support for complex syntax. Cons: proprietary engine, limited customization options.
5. **Micromarkdown**: Pros: lightweight, easy to use, good handling of simple Markdown syntax. Cons: slower parsing and rendering.
6. **Snarkdown**: Pros: fast, efficient rendering, good support for common Markdown syntax. Cons: limited handling of complex syntax.

**Device Platform and Operating System**

The benchmark results are reported on a mobile device platform (Mobile Safari 16) with iOS 16.1.1 operating system.

In summary, the benchmark compares six JavaScript Markdown implementations, each with its strengths and weaknesses, to determine which one performs best in terms of rendering speed and handling of complex Markdown syntax.

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 29 (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):