Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
concatenation vs template literal
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
concatenation vs template literal
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
concatenation
let a = "a", b = "b"; return a + b;
template literal
let a = "a", b = "b"; return `${a}${b}`;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
concatenation
template literal
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=588400" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
concatenation
70.7M/s
template literal
65.8M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
concatenation
70,675,056 Ops/sec
template literal
65,837,732 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Purpose** The benchmark tests two approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript: the traditional `+` operator and template literals. The goal is to determine which approach is faster, more efficient, and easier to read. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Concatenation using the `+` operator**: This method involves using the `+` operator to concatenate two strings. 2. **Template Literals**: This method uses backticks (``) to create a string template, allowing for more readable and efficient string concatenation. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Concatenation using the `+` operator**: * Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to understand. * Cons: Can be less efficient than other methods, especially when dealing with large strings or many concatenations. 2. **Template Literals**: * Pros: More readable, efficient, and flexible than traditional concatenation. * Cons: Requires support for backticks (``) in older browsers or environments. **Library/Feature Used** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, template literals are a standard JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Special JS Feature/Syntax** Template literals use a syntax similar to string formatting in other programming languages, such as C# or Java. The syntax involves surrounding the desired content with backticks (``) and using `${}` to insert expressions or values. **Other Alternatives** If template literals are not supported or preferred, other alternatives for concatenating strings include: 1. `join()` method: This method takes an array of strings as input and returns a single string by concatenating all the elements. 2. Array.prototype.concat() method: This method concatenates multiple arrays into a single array. 3. String.prototype.repeat() method: This method repeats a string a specified number of times. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or use cases compared to template literals. In summary, the benchmark on MeasureThat.net aims to determine which approach (concatenation using the `+` operator or template literals) is faster and more efficient for concatenating strings in JavaScript.
Related benchmarks
Template strings vs. String.concat v2
String() vs template literal
number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor
Concatenation vs Template String
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?