Benchmark: Markdown–DOM Performance Comparison 7

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 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 "# 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);
markdown-wasm
var inp; try { inp = markdown.parse(md()); } catch { inp = md();} (new DOMParser()).parseFromString(inp, 'text/html');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of six different Markdown implementations: Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, and markdown-wasm. The test creates a sample Markdown text (`md`) and uses each implementation to render it into HTML.

**Test Cases**

Each test case represents a single Markdown implementation being tested for performance. The benchmark defines a script preparation code (`conv` object) that contains all the implementations to be compared. Each test case has a unique `Benchmark Definition` that specifies how the implementation is used:

1. **Marked**: `conv.marked(md())`
	* This is the original Marked library, which renders Markdown text directly.
2. **CommonMark**: `conv.cm.render(conv.pars.cm.parse(md()))`
	* CommonMark uses a parser to parse the Markdown text and then renders it using its own HTML renderer.
3. **Markdown-it**: `conv.mdit.render(md())`
	* Markdown-it is another popular Markdown library that renders Markdown text into HTML.
4. **Remarkable**: `conv.remarkable.render(md())`
	* Remarkable is a Markdown parser and renderer that uses a separate rendering engine for HTML output.
5. **Micromarkdown**: `conv.micromarkdown.parse(md(), true)`
	* Micromarkdown is a lightweight, fast Markdown implementation that also renders Markdown text into HTML.
6. **markdown-wasm**: `var inp; try { inp = markdown.parse(md()); } catch { inp = md();} (new DOMParser()).parseFromString(inp, 'text/html');`
	* This test case uses the Wasm version of markdown.js to parse and render Markdown text.

**Comparison**

Each implementation is compared using the same sample Markdown text (`md`). The benchmark measures the number of executions per second for each implementation. The results show which implementation performs best in terms of performance.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Marked**: Pros: Lightweight, fast rendering. Cons: Limited features.
* **CommonMark**: Pros: Flexible parser, good support for complex Markdown syntax. Cons: Heavier than Marked due to the additional parsing step.
* **Markdown-it**: Pros: Fast rendering, extensive library features. Cons: Larger footprint, more dependencies.
* **Remarkable**: Pros: Robust feature set, separate rendering engine for HTML output. Cons: More complex architecture, slower rendering compared to lightweight options.
* **Micromarkdown**: Pros: Lightweight, fast rendering, and compact size. Cons: Limited features, may require additional configuration for certain use cases.
* **markdown-wasm**: Pros: Fast execution time, minimal dependencies. Cons: May have performance issues due to Wasm limitations.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

1. `marked`: A lightweight Markdown rendering library.
2. `CommonMark`: A Markdown parser and renderer with a flexible architecture.
3. `Markdown-it`: A popular Markdown library with extensive features.
4. `Remarkable`: A robust Markdown parser and renderer with a separate HTML rendering engine.
5. `micromarkdown`: A lightweight, fast Markdown implementation.

**Skip Preambles**

Taking a deep breath...

Related benchmarks:

Markdown–DOM Performance Comparison 7 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

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

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

markdown-wasm

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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