Benchmark: Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat4

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const formatter = new Intl.NumberFormat(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', }); for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { let formatted = formatter.format(currencyPlayNumber); }
Number.toLocaleString
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; for(var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { let formatted = currencyPlayNumber.toLocaleString(undefined, { style: 'currency', currency: 'RUB', }) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Number.toLocaleString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	82.2 Ops/sec
Number.toLocaleString	0.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for formatting numbers in JavaScript:

1. Using the `Intl.NumberFormat` API (Internationalized Number Format)
2. Using the `toLocaleString` method without the `Intl.NumberFormat` API ( native implementation)

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The tests are designed to measure the performance of both approaches when formatting a large number of Russian ruble values.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This API provides a standardized way to format numbers for different languages and regions. It's part of the ECMAScript Internationalization API.
2. **Number.toLocaleString**: This method is a native JavaScript implementation that formats numbers according to the language and region settings.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Intl.NumberFormat**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a standardized way to format numbers for different languages and regions.
		+ Can handle complex number formatting scenarios, such as thousands separators, decimal points, and currency symbols.
		+ Is designed to be highly performant and efficient.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating an instance of the `Intl.NumberFormat` object, which may incur some overhead.
		+ May not work well with older browsers or those that don't support the ECMAScript Internationalization API.
2. **Number.toLocaleString**
	* Pros:
		+ Does not require creating a separate instance, as it's a native method.
		+ Should be more compatible with older browsers and devices.
	* Cons:
		+ May not handle complex number formatting scenarios as well as `Intl.NumberFormat`.
		+ Performance may vary depending on the browser and device.

**Library/ Library purpose**

None of the provided test cases use a specific library. However, if you were to add additional test cases, you might consider using libraries like:

* `number-format` (a lightweight JavaScript library for formatting numbers)
* `intl-locales` (a library that provides internationalization support for dates and numbers)

**Special JS feature/Syntax**

None of the provided test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, if you were to add additional test cases, you might consider using features like:

* Arrow functions
* Promises or async/await
* Classes (ES6 classes)
* Modern JavaScript methods like `map()`, `filter()`, and `reduce()`

Related benchmarks:

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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