Benchmark: Markdown–DOM Performance Comparison 10

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-normal
conv.mdit.render(md());
Remarkable
conv.remarkable.render(md());
Micromarkdown
conv.micromarkdown.parse(md(),true);
markdown-wasm
var inp; try { inp = markdown.parse(md().substring(0,100)); } catch { inp = md().substring(0,100);} (new DOMParser()).parseFromString(inp, 'text/html');
markdown-wasm-normal
try { markdown.parse(md()); } catch {; }
markdown-it
(new DOMParser()).parseFromString(conv.mdit.render(md().substring(0,100)), 'text/html');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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'd be happy to help explain the benchmark and its various components.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a performance benchmark for different JavaScript Markdown implementations. The goal is to compare the execution speed of these libraries on a sample input text, which is stored in the `md()` function variable.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition involves creating a JavaScript object (`conv`) that contains references to various Markdown libraries (e.g., marked, commonmark, markdown-it, remarkable, micromarkdown, snarkdown). Each library is assigned a specific instance or method (`render()`, `parse()`, etc.) that will be used to process the input text.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of different Markdown libraries in the following order:

1. **marked**: uses the marked library for rendering and parsing
2. **commonmark**: uses the commonmark library for rendering and parsing
3. **markdown-it-normal**: uses the markdown-it library with default settings for rendering and parsing
4. **remarkable**: uses the remarkable library for rendering and parsing
5. **micromarkdown**: uses the micromarkdown library for parsing (note: this one is not rendering)
6. **markdown-wasm** (and its variants): uses a WebAssembly-based implementation of Markdown
7. **markdown-it**: uses the markdown-it library with custom settings for rendering

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each library:

1. **marked**: widely used, efficient, but has some limitations in terms of features and customization.
2. **commonmark**: designed to be highly customizable and extensible, but may have performance implications due to its complexity.
3. **markdown-it-normal**: a popular choice for its ease of use and flexibility, but might not be as performant as other options.
4. **remarkable**: optimized for performance and readability, but has some limitations in terms of customization and feature set.
5. **micromarkdown**: specifically designed for parsing, which can lead to faster execution times, but may lack rendering capabilities.
6. **markdown-wasm**: WebAssembly-based implementation offers potential performance benefits, but its usage and compatibility may be limited due to the new technology.
7. **markdown-it**: similar to marked, but with custom settings, which might provide better performance or features.

**Results**

The benchmark results show that:

* markdown-wasm-normal has the highest execution speed
* micromarkdown has a close second
* remarkable and markdown-it also perform well
* marked and commonmark have slower execution speeds

Keep in mind that these results may vary depending on specific use cases, input data, and other factors.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its components!

Related benchmarks:

Markdown–DOM Performance Comparison 10 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

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

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it-normal

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

markdown-wasm

markdown-wasm-normal

markdown-it

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):