Benchmark: fetch vs ajax call (fixed)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function showResult(data) {
    console.log(data);
}
var newUrl = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis";

Tests:

Ajax
var request = $.ajax({ type: "GET", url: newUrl, success: showResult, data: null });
Fetch
fetch(newUrl) .then( function(response) { response.json().then(function(data) { showResult(data); }); } ) .catch(function(err) { console.log('Fetch Error :-S', err); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ajax
Fetch

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.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using the Fetch API (a modern, built-in JavaScript API) versus using jQuery's AJAX call mechanism (an older, third-party library). The goal is to determine which approach performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Comparison Options**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Fetch API**: This is a modern API introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows for making HTTP requests in a more concise and elegant way.
2. **jQuery's AJAX Call Mechanism**: This is an older approach that uses jQuery to make HTTP requests. While it's still widely used, it's not as modern or efficient as the Fetch API.

**Pros and Cons**

**Fetch API:**

Pros:

* Modern and built-in, reducing dependency on third-party libraries
* More concise and readable code
* Better support for modern web features (e.g., HTTP/2, WebSockets)

Cons:

* May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support the Fetch API
* Can be slower in some cases due to the overhead of parsing the request URL

**jQuery's AJAX Call Mechanism:**

Pros:

* Widely supported across most modern and older browsers
* Easy to use and familiar for developers who have worked with jQuery before
* Can be faster in some cases due to caching and other optimizations

Cons:

* Third-party library dependency, which can introduce additional overhead
* Less concise and more verbose code compared to the Fetch API
* May not support modern web features or HTTP/2

**Library Used: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a lot of useful functionality for working with HTML documents, DOM manipulation, event handling, and Ajax requests. In this benchmark, jQuery's AJAX call mechanism is used as one of the options being compared.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both the Fetch API and jQuery's AJAX call mechanism use standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. ** Axios**: Another popular HTTP client library that provides a simple and easy-to-use API for making requests.
2. **XMLHttpRequest**: An older, built-in JavaScript API for making HTTP requests (although it's not as modern or concise as the Fetch API).
3. **Puppeteer**: A Node.js library for controlling headless Chrome or Firefox browsers, which can be used to test browser-based applications.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison between two approaches: using the Fetch API versus jQuery's AJAX call mechanism. By testing both options, developers can gain insight into the performance differences and make informed decisions about which approach to use in their own projects.

Related benchmarks:

fetch vs ajax call (fixed) (version: 0)

fetch vs ajax call

Comparing performance of: Ajax vs Fetch

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ajax

Fetch

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):