Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 1001

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 type="text/javascript" src="https://lukeuser.cacus.feralhosting.com/markdown.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
    window.onerror = function(message, url, lineNumber) {  
        // code to execute on an error  
        return true; // prevents browser error messages  
    };
</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,
    markdown: window.markdown
};

var pars = {
    cm: new commonmark.Parser()
};

function md() {
return "# 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(),true);
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md());
markdown-wasm
try {conv.markdown.parse(md());} catch {return null};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	34945.9 Ops/sec
CommonMark	179347.8 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	203722.0 Ops/sec
Remarkable	273430.2 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	78720.2 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	12241.1 Ops/sec
markdown-wasm	2063521.9 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 and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of six different Markdown parsers:

1. Marked
2. CommonMark
3. Markdown-it
4. Remarkable
5. Micromarkdown
6. Snarkdown

Each parser is tested with a fixed input: a Markdown template (`md`) containing a specific text.

**Test Cases**

The test cases are defined in the `Individual test cases` section, which provides a clear and concise representation of each benchmark:

1. **Marked**: `conv.marked(md());`
	* Pros: Well-established library with good performance.
	* Cons: May not be as lightweight or customizable as other options.
2. **CommonMark**: `conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md()));`
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, with a strong focus on simplicity and readability.
	* Cons: May require more manual configuration to achieve desired output.
3. **Markdown-it**: `conv.mdit.render(md());`
	* Pros: High-performance and feature-rich, with good support for advanced Markdown features.
	* Cons: Can be more complex to use and configure than other options.
4. **Remarkable**: `conv.remarkable.render(md());`
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, with a strong focus on simplicity and ease of use.
	* Cons: May not be as customizable or flexible as other options.
5. **Micromarkdown**: `conv.micromarkdown.parse(md(),true);`
	* Pros: Lightweight and fast, with good support for basic Markdown features.
	* Cons: Limited functionality compared to more feature-rich parsers like Markdown-it.
6. **Snarkdown**: `conv.snarkdown(md());`
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, with good support for advanced Markdown features.
	* Cons: May require more manual configuration to achieve desired output.

**Results**

The benchmark results show the execution speed of each parser in terms of `ExecutionsPerSecond`. The top performers are:

1. Snarkdown (40391.78515625)
2. Remarkable (78287.9765625)
3. Micromarkdown (92094.953125)
4. Markdown-it (70922.359375)
5. CommonMark (96996.671875)
6. Marked (96996.671875)

**Comparison**

The results suggest that Snarkdown and Remarkable are the top performers, followed closely by Micromarkdown and Markdown-it. CommonMark is still a strong contender, but trails behind slightly. Marked is the slowest of the group.

In general, the benchmark suggests that:

* Lightweight parsers (Micromarkdown) tend to be slower than more feature-rich parsers (Markdown-it).
* Simplicity and ease of use are important factors in parser performance.
* Advanced Markdown features can have a significant impact on parsing speed.

Please note that these results are specific to this particular benchmark and may not generalize to other scenarios or inputs.

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 1001 (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 vs markdown-wasm

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

markdown-wasm

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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