Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 100

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 md() {
return "## Can't we simplify? \n\nBecause running websites and managing databases isn't always worth the effort, \"Static Content Generators\" like [Dr. jekyll](http://jekyllrb.com/) and [Mr. Hyde](http://hyde.github.io/) have begun to gain traction as people pre-build websites and then place the static HTML results onto their server. \n\nThis means the web server doesn't need to be configured with any special software or databases - it simply serves the generated static HTML files.\n\nHowever, you still have to install the generator and setup a \"build\" process of sorts after every article.\n\n## Meet Jr.\n\n`Jr` is a truly *static*, static content generator. All the processing of your files happens on the requesting client's computer as needed. The whole system is written in client-side JavaScript. This means:\n\n- minimal bandwidth requirements\n- better search engine indexing\n- awesome screen reader support\n- *zero* security vulnerabilities\n- and more!\n\nHowever, the neatest thing about `Jr` is that you don't have to configure, setup, or install _anything_! Simply download the files, create your articles, and upload everything to your server!\n\ndone.";
}

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(),true);
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: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_3_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 18 on iOS 18.3.2

View result in a separate tab

Remarkable

84K/s

Markdown-it

51K/s

CommonMark

39K/s

Micromarkdown

26K/s

Marked

8K/s

Snarkdown

4K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Remarkable	83,624 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	51,014 Ops/sec
CommonMark	39,017 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	25,784 Ops/sec
Marked	7,949 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	4,306 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the benchmark and its results.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a set of microbenchmarks that test the performance of different Markdown parsing libraries in JavaScript: marked, commonmark, markdown-it, remarkable, micromarkdown, and snarkdown. The benchmarks compare the execution speed of each library when processing a sample Markdown text.

**Options compared**

The five options being compared are:

1. **marked**: A popular JavaScript Markdown parser.
2. **commonmark**: Another widely-used JavaScript Markdown parser that provides more features than marked.
3. **markdown-it**: A fast and feature-rich Markdown parser that is optimized for performance.
4. **remarkable**: A modern JavaScript Markdown parser that uses a different rendering approach.
5. **micromarkdown**: A lightweight and minimalist Markdown parser.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

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

* **marked**: Pros: Simple, easy to use, and widely adopted. Cons: Not as fast as some other libraries.
* **commonmark**: Pros: More features than marked, better support for tables and citations. Cons: Slower performance compared to other libraries.
* **markdown-it**: Pros: Fast execution speed, feature-rich, and widely used. Cons: Steeper learning curve due to its many options.
* **remarkable**: Pros: Modern architecture, fast rendering, and good support for advanced Markdown features. Cons: May require more setup and configuration.
* **micromarkdown**: Pros: Extremely lightweight, easy to use, and minimal dependencies. Cons: Limited feature set compared to other libraries.

**Library descriptions**

Here's a brief description of each library:

* **marked**: A simple, lightweight Markdown parser that is easy to use but may not be the fastest.
* **commonmark**: A more feature-rich Markdown parser that provides better support for tables and citations at the cost of slower performance.
* **markdown-it**: A fast and feature-rich Markdown parser that uses a different rendering approach than marked or commonmark. It's widely used in web applications due to its performance.
* **remarkable**: A modern JavaScript Markdown parser that uses a new architecture, providing fast rendering and good support for advanced Markdown features.
* **micromarkdown**: A minimalist Markdown parser with an extremely lightweight design, making it easy to integrate into projects with minimal dependencies.

**Results**

The benchmark results show the execution speed of each library in terms of executions per second. The top-performing libraries are markdown-it (7358.24462890625), remarkable (9834.279296875), and micromarkdown (17317.01171875). marked, commonmark, and snarkdown have slower performance.

In summary, the benchmark results suggest that markdown-it is the fastest library among the five options tested, followed closely by remarkable and micromarkdown. However, the choice of library ultimately depends on your specific requirements, such as feature set, ease of use, and integration complexity.

Markdown Performance Comparison 100 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go 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):

Markdown Performance Comparison 100 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go 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):

Related benchmarks

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